Talk:Anti-Semitism in Christianity

Wiki Ed assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nruther (article contribs).

Revert

Reverted an IP as unsourced analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources.

The Christian antisemitism is older than the Talmud, so the Talmud was not the cause of Christian antisemitism. The fact that the Jews knew very well that the Old Testament predicted nothing about Jesus was. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"Christian Opposition to Anti-Semitism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Christian Opposition to Anti-Semitism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 15 § Christian Opposition to Anti-Semitism until a consensus is reached.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

John Chrysostom and Adversos Judaeos

While Chrysostom's "Adversos Judaeos" homilies may be classified as "anti-Jewish" (though it's evident that he's more concerned about Judaism in the same way the Jews would likewise have an antipathy towards Christianity), the citations used in service of demonstrating this ("grew fit for slaughter", his hearkening to Luke 19:27) are taken out of context in order to support the claim that Chrysostom considered them worthy of death.

What precedes "grew fit for slaughter", in Homily 1 of that series, in 2:4-5:

(4) Stephen was right in calling them stiff-necked. For they failed to take up the yoke of Christ, although it was sweet and had nothing about it which was either burdensome or oppressive. For he said: "Learn from me for I am meek and humble of heart", and "Take my yoke upon you, for my yoke is sweet and my burden light". Nonetheless they failed to take up the yoke because of the stiffness of their necks. Not only did they fail to take it up but they broke it and destroyed it. For Jeremiah said: "Long ago you broke your yoke and burst your bonds". It was not Paul who said this but the voice of the prophet speaking loud and clear. When he spoke of the yoke and the bonds, he meant the symbols of rule, because the Jews rejected the rule of Christ when they said: "We have no king but Caesar". You Jews broke the yoke, you burst the bonds, you cast yourselves out of the kingdom of heaven, and you made yourselves subject to the rule of men. Please consider with me how accurately the prophet hinted that their hearts were uncontrolled. He did not say: "You set aside the yoke", but "You broke the yoke" and this is the crime of untamed beasts, who are uncontrolled and reject rule. (5) But what is the source of this hardness? It come from gluttony and drunkenness. Who say so? Moses himself. "Israel ate and was filled and the darling grew fat and frisky". When brute animals feed from a full manger, they grow plump and become more obstinate and hard to hold in check; they endure neither the yoke, the reins, nor the hand of the charioteer. Just so the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer". And still another called the Jews "an untamed calf".

The likening to kinds of animals never ceases to be figurative. Chrysostom doesn't state they "deserve to be killed" anymore than he's suggesting that Christians "deserve to work"-- he's arguing that the Jews are (actually, contrary to his perception of the widespread belief that they're pious and solemn) as decadent as fattened livestock. Thus, 2:6 starts with: "Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter." The Scripture he thereafter cites is part of the closing comments of the preceding "parable of the ten minas", which is 1) fundamentally eschatological, and 2) features three men, two of whom do as they're told and are rewarded accordingly (one of them receiving what the disobedient man was charged with, in addition to his own reward). Arsenic-03 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there analysis in any of the sources about this passage and its meaning? Meanings and understanding of them slide over time - take for example the controversy over the "Horned Moses" figure - there's now two clearly competing views, one that it was purely due Jerome's "translation error", and another that the medieval portrayals are in fact intended to be antisemitic, whatever the origin of the idea. Jim Killock (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

How the West Became Antisemitic Jews

I believe this book would be a better source than a lot of the references used for this article. 69.27.69.5 (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

the Name of the Book is: How the West Became Antisemitic 69.27.69.5 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)