Are the Christian gospels Anti-Semetic?

Great Debates
1

In this thread:

the claim was made, and briefly discussed, that the four canonical Christian gospels are anti-semetic. Obviously, this was not an appropriate discussion for GQ, so, I’m moving it here, because I think it can be argued that they are anti-semetic, or at least can be read in such a way that suggests a likely anti-semetic interpretation. In support, I offer the following (all verses come from the “New International Version” of the bible)

First, from the book of John. John is the only gospel that talks about the Jews as a group, rather than discussing the actions of individual Jews. So, for instance, we get lines like (John 10:31-33):

And later, referring to this incident (John 11:8),

And again in John 19:38, we’re told:

Turning to the Gospel of Matthew, in Matt. 27:24-25, we see the line that has probably caused Jews the most problem through history:

There, it’s made clear that the guilt for Jesus’s death is on the Jews…not only ones in the crowd, but also “our children”.

In addition to these passages, which set up “the Jews” as enemies to Jesus, we also see in the gospels a rejection and trivializing of Judaism. So, we’re told in John 1:17

and John 5:46, where Jesus says:

And, that the laws of Moses aren’t divine (Matt 19:7-8):

These passages, along with others, seem to suggest that there is anti-semetic sentiment in the canonical gospels.

2

First off, Jesus and his disciples were all Jewish, and this was hardly secret. Some of them (like Paul) altered or dropped rules from Judaism and lived differently. Some kept them. But the story is presented as the people who wrote it belived it happened. The fact that some people don’t come off well is irrelevant. Frankly, the Jews, Romans, and even the Apostles don’t come off well compared the Big J.

Dont’ believe me? Take a look at Peter, the unofficial “spokesman.” He’s… an idiot. Kinda. Oh, he’s nice and earnest. But he’s clearly well out of his intellectual league. And the history of his work after Jesus, and how people responded to him (particularly Paul) continue that. In fact, Peter’s kind of a buffoon. He constantly minsintereprets things. Jesus keeps correcting him. Even later on, Paul (highly annoyed at the time) asked whether Peter was going to finally decide to keep or ignore the Jewish dietary laws consistently.

3

That the Gospels have passages that could be turned to be anti-semitic is clear, based on the fact that far too many Christians have, indeed, butressed their own baseless hatreds with allusions to those passages.

That they were written to attack Judaism or to promote anti-semitic beliefs or feelings is open to more question–and I would say not.

The two Gospels from which anti-Jewish passages can be most easily extracted are the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John.

The author of Matthew was probably writing to a community of Jewish people who (or whose parents) had become Christians. This is why his gospel is filled with lots of allusions to the Old Testament (using the Septuagint translation) and other attempts to draw parallels between Jesus and Abraham or between (sometimes obscure) prophecies and events that he portrays in the life of Jesus.

Among the events he presents are references to the destruction of the Temple and the call by the people before Pilate to “let His blood be upon us and on our children.” In context, it would seem that the author is encouraging these new Christians to embrace the new religion by showing the contrast between the primary focus of liturgy (the sacrifices of the Temple, now destroyed, and the person of Jesus) and by presenting the Jewish people of Jerusalem (not all believers of the Jewish faith–as among his audience in the Diaspora) as rejecting Jesus.

The author of the Gospel of John (or, at least, one of its iterations) was very likely writing in the 90s during the severe persecution of the Church by Domitian. Again addressing a gentile audience, (this time not consisting of converts from among the Jews), the author often uses “Jews” as shorthand for anyone in Roman Palestine who opposed Jesus–Pharisees, Sadducees, the priests, or the people. Further, by making “the Jews” the people who called for the death of Jesus, the Gospel moves the blame for the crucifixion away from Pilate and the Roman authorities.
While the frequent use of “the Jews” clearly was intended to distance the coalescing Christian community from the Jewish community, I do not see evidence that the author of John wished to condemn the Jewish people or incite hatred against them. (Note, that he does not include the passage from Matthew about the blood of Jesus being on the heads of the Jewish people.)

Obviously, these opinions are open to challenge, but if we are seeking motives of the authors (as opposed to the horrible ways that later Christians used those passages), then I do not find a malicious intent in them. Even the early church (where anti-semitism rises too early for comfort) did not seem to hold these passages or others to indicate a condemnation of the Jewish faith or peoples. When Marcion tried to form his own canon around 150 by excluding the Old Testament and any favorable letters addressing the Jews (such as the Letter to the Hebrews) the church responded by insisting that Christianity was founded upon a base of Judaism and that such books were necessary to an understanding of the faith.

4

But isn’t that, in itself, anti-Semitic, just in it’s rejectionism? It’s saying, "Here’s Jesus, who’s predicted by all these prophecies, and you, my readers and fellow Christians understand that, while the Jews obviously don’t. So, they’re too dumb or stubborn, or whatever, to realize that Christianity is the “real” Judaism.

In some ways, even, Marcion’s view is more friendly to Judaism than the orthodox view, because for Marcion, while the Christian God is certainly better than the Jewish God, he’s at least willing to take the attitude, “Judaism has nothing to do with us at all…so let the Jews worship their God, and it’s none of our business”. There’s a kind of toleration there that mainstream early Christianity can’t have.

5

I guess that would depend on how one defined anti-semitism.

I would tend to see anti-semitism in terms of characterizing them as deliberately evil with overtones of conspiracies and hidden powers. The truly negative comments in Matthew are directed toward the people of Jerusalem, not the Diaspora of Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Egypt, or other Jewish centers.

If you see rejectionism as the same as anti-semitism, then you can throw Paul into the mix as he certainly made an issue of the adherence to the Law and the rejection of the message of Jesus in a couple of letters even though he insisted throughout that he was a Jew. If that is your definition of anti-semitism, then I guess that will be the conclusion you will reach. I have no argument against that perception other than that it does not meet my definition.

6

Actually, Marcion did not have a “live and let live” attitude. He was very vocal in his condemnation of the Jews.

7

Marcion was, sure, but what I’m saying is that Marcion’s theology didn’t neccesarily lead to anti-semitism.

I guess the problem I have with your definition of “I would tend to see anti-semitism in terms of characterizing them as deliberately evil with overtones of conspiracies and hidden powers.” is that that seems to be really limiting. I mean, for example, Victorian England and 19th and early 20th century American were certainly anti-semitic. But I don’t think the reason that Jews were snubbed socially, not allowed to stay at certain hotels and resorts, or whatever, isn’t because of that.

Your definition does, of course, fit a particularly nasty strain of anti-semitism, as can be seen in the medieval “Jews kill Christian child for matzo” and “Elders of Zion pull the springs and are responsible for communism/capitalism/German loss in WWI/whatever” myths. I’m just saying that’s not the only for anti-semitism takes.

8

I’m not claiming to be an expert, but I notice this when I read John: two terms are used to refer to the people of Judah/Palestine (not talking about the Romans or other foreigners): “the Jews” and “the crowd.” My personal understanding is that “the Jews” refers to the Jewish authorities: members of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, scribes, what-have-you. The run-of-the-mill Jewish Palestinian falls under “the crowd.”
As the the assertion about Matt 19:7-8, it seems like a stretch to me. I think Jesus is referring to the fact that the divorce law was not what God intended for marriage, and refers back to Gen. 2:24. How that becomes anti-Semitic is beyond me.

9

This thread has to start out with the awfully big presumption that the Gospels we know are the same as they were written by the apostles. Most scholars now believe that there were additions and deletions along the way. (NPR recently did a segment on a new book on this very subject, Bart Ehrman’s ‘Misquoting Jesus’. I have not read it myself.)

I have heard some scholars take issue with Matt. 27:24-25. I have to concur. In my opinion, the hand-washing is accurate to the time period and might have happened, but the idea of a crowd simultaneously crying “Let it be on our heads, and the heads of our children,” is patently absurd.

  1. Some in the crowd may have known Jesus but he certainly didn’t have the kind of name recognition he has today. Most probably didn’t even know who the guy was, or what he was charged with, except for hurried whispers from bystanders.

  2. The crowd saw a visual demonstration that the “judge”, Pilate, thought he was not guilty. In essence, they would be knowingly executing an innocent man. The crowd was not hostile to him-- they likely didn’t know who he was, or much care. Why do they want him dead so badly?

  3. Being cursed was not a casual concept in this time. People did not swear oaths with the penalty visited on both themselves, and their descendents, lightly, because they believed the results might be real. I may say, “God strike me with lightning if I’m lying,” but I could dissemble comfortably, knowing I’m not facing electrocution but they really believed they would be. Such a weighty matter would have given even those who wanted him dead pause.

  4. The crowd apparently cried this in unison (Or did they all yell it out when they heard their neighbors chanting the oath? “Yeah, my kids’ heads too!”) Was there someone asking the crowd to repeat the words? How did they all know what to say?

5)The story grinds the guilt of the Pharisees in deeply. According to the story, they were planted in the audience to get the crowd to chant for Barabbas to be released. Why did they have to do that, if Barabbas was such a popular criminal as the story hints? Didn’t Barabbas have friends and supporters of his own to stir up the crowd?

  1. Since Jesus was likely executed for political rabble-rousing* and not “heresy”, why would the Pharisees be there at all?
  • The Romans would not execute a man for heresy to a religion in which they had no belief. They were interested in keeping law and order. Jesus was hanging out with some pretty unsavory characters: Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot** (Iscarii means “knife” so he was likely an assasin.
    ** “Judas the Knife” is a great gangster name.
10

I’m don’t think I’m presuming that. I’m just saying that the Gospels we know are anti-Semitic. And Ehrman’s book is very good, btw. I’d reccomend it.

That’s what I’m trying to say…that the accounts of the death of Jesus seem to go out of their way to blame the Jewish religious establishment and the Jewish crowds for Jesus’s death.

11

I am not a scholar nor am I a learned person . But as a Christian and believing that the gospels are the cornerstone of my religion, to hate the Jews goes against everything thing that Jesus stood for. I’m not saying it isn’t easy (not hating people in general ) but thats the only way I can do it . The hate thing didn’t work out real well for me.

12

Actually most scholars don’t believe this. The ones who get press time tend to hold this belief (and they are in a minority). The couple of exceptions would be the addition to the end of Mark and one other that I can’t think of right now and don’t have time to look up. The ones who I know who hold the belief that someone may have deleted/addition/changing the order of/yada yada yada a word or two also believe that it would not have made a difference in the message of the Gospels. The prime example is something like “Simon, son of____” instead of “Son of ____, Simon”.

13

Depends on who you want to call a “scholar”. Preachers with a dog in the fight often call themselves scholars of the Bible when all they’ve done is read it. If you include those in your desgination, then you’re right, those who question whether or not the scriptures have been significantly altered are a tiny bunch indeed.

14

I have a problem comparing them using this definition though. The Christians at the time these Gospels were written were powerless, persecuted and in danger. The idea that they were in any way written by people in a position to discriminate or look down on or exclude Jews, & so reflect that, isn’t on. I know you know that Captain.

As to the larger question, lets agree that it is notoriously difficult to come up with a working definition of anti-Semitism.

Lets say anti-Semitism includes the elements **tomndeb ** hits and we agree the Gospels aren’t that type of anti-Semitic.

Lets say our definition of anti-Semitism includes the more subtle stuff you hit above – social isolation, snobbery, discrimination and exclusion – but the Gospels weren’t saying that or encouraging that - in their historical context they just couldn’t.

{The Gospels were used by anti-Semites to justify their views – including in the two ways listed above & I would fight tooth and nail anyone who denies that}

So we are left with what you define as “itself*, anti-Semitic, just in it’s rejectionism*”. I think the Gospels do draw a line between Christianity and Judaism – but not as much of a line as between Christianity and Paganism. In fact, the Gospels were weak enough on this score that fairly late (well past the time these books were written) there were still Christian Judaizers who believed Christianity was just a branch of Judaism. This was never an issue with, say, Mars worship or animism, Christianity utterly rejected them - unlike Judaism.

To me though the bottom line is that for the Gospel to be anti-Semitic Jesus would have to roll his eyes doing Jewish stuff JOHN XXXXV v567 " … and Jesus made fun of the Jews and their Passover" instead of solemnly observing it. " JOHN XXXXV v567 “Jesus turned to the Apostles and derided circumcion, as superstition” instead of being circumcised etc.

Gospels used by anti-Semites: Yes. Gospels inherently and written by anti-Semites (literally we’d have to say “self-hating Jews”): [COLOR=DimGray]No[/COLOR]