The presence of antisemitism in the New Testament is a debated topic in biblical scholarship. It is argued that the New Testament contributed toward subsequent antisemitism in the Christian community.[1]
Contents |
A. Roy Eckardt, a pioneer in the field of Jewish-Christian relations,[2] asserted that the foundation of antisemitism and responsibility for the Holocaust lies ultimately in the New Testament.[3] Eckardt insisted that Christian repentance must include a reexamination of basic theological attitudes toward Jews and the New Testament in order to deal effectively with antisemitism.[4]
The general message that scholars such as Eckardt are trying to convey is that, using the New Testament as its authoritative source, the Church has stereotyped the Jewish people as an icon of unredeemed humanity; they became an image of a blind, stubborn, carnal, and perverse people. According to this view, this dehumanization is the vehicle that formed the psychological prerequisite to the atrocities that followed.
According to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, there are ten themes in the New Testament that are the greatest sources of anxiety for Jews concerning Christian anti-Semitism:
Cook believes that both contemporary Jews and contemporary Christians need to reexamine the history of early Christianity, and the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect consisting of followers of a Jewish Jesus, to a separate religion often dependent on the tolerance of Rome while proselytizing among Gentiles loyal to the Roman empire, to understand how the story of Jesus came to be recast in an anti-Jewish form as the Gospels took their final form.[6]
Some scholars assert that critical verses in the New Testament have been used to incite prejudice and violence against Jewish people. Professor Lillian C. Freudmann, author of Antisemitism in the New Testament (University Press of America, 1994) has published a study of such verses and the effects that they have had in the Christian community throughout history. Similar studies have been made by both Christian and Jewish scholars, including, Professors Clark Williamsom (Christian Theological Seminary), Hyam Maccoby (The Leo Baeck Institute), Norman A. Beck (Texas Lutheran College), and Michael Berenbaum (Georgetown University).
Occasionally, these verses have also been used to encourage anti-Christian sentiment among non-Christians. Christian apologists argue that by taking isolated verses out of context, people distort the message of Christianity.
Competition for converts and other factors led to an intensification of Jewish-Christian conflict towards the end of the first century, although there is also evidence of continued Jewish-Christian interaction, including Christian participation in Sabbath worship, in some areas well beyond that. These conflicts are thought by some scholars to have had a negative impact on the writers of certain parts of the New Testament.
There are some verses in the New Testament that describe Jews in a positive way, attributing to them salvation John 4:22 or divine love (Epistle to the Romans 11:28). In the story of the crucifixion, meanwhile, Jews prompt Jesus' execution and say "His blood be on us, and on our children" Matthew 27:25, referred to as the blood curse. In the Book of John, Jesus calls certain Pharisees "children of the devil". John 8:44
According to the New Testament, Jesus' crucifixion was authorized by Roman authorities at the insistence of leading Jews (Judeans) from the Sanhedrin.[7]
Paul H. Jones writes:[8]
| “ | Although Mark depicts all of the Jewish groups united in their opposition to Jesus, his passion narratives are not "overtly" anti-Jewish, since they can be interpreted as falling within the range of "acceptable" intra-Jewish disputes. To some readers, the "cleansing of the Temple" scene (11:15-19) framed by the "withered fig tree" pericopes confirms God's judgment against the Jews and their Temple. Most likely, however, the story explains for this small sect of Jesus followers that survived the Roman-Jewish War why God permitted the destruction of the Temple. It is an in-house interpretation and, therefore, not anti-Jewish. Likewise, the parable of the vineyard (12:1-12), by which the traditional allegorical interpretation casts the tenants as the Jews, the murdered heir as Jesus, and the owner as God, must be set within the context of an intra-Jewish dispute. | ” |
The New Testament records that Jesus' (Jewish) disciple Judas Iscariot (Mark 14:43-46), the Roman governor Pontius Pilate along with Roman forces (John 19:11; Acts 4:27) and Judean (Jewish) leaders and people of Jerusalem were (to varying degrees) responsible for the death of Jesus.(Acts 13:27)
Although the Gospel of Matthew is considered to be the "most Jewish" of the Gospels, it contains one of the most anti-Jewish passages found in the New Testament. Probably located in Syrian Antioch, the Matthean community defined itself over and against the synagogue.
Thus, the term "Jews" in the Gospel represents those who deny the resurrection and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse (28:13-15). Through Jesus, membership in the one people of God is extended to include the Gentiles (24:14; 28:16-20; see also Great Commission), but they do not replace the Jews (4:18-13:58). Both Jew and Gentile participate in God's plan for salvation. [9]
As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases. In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard (to which we have already referred) is followed by the great "stone" text, an early christological midrash of Psalm 118:22-23: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone" (Matt. 21:42). Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees: "you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?" (23:31, 33).
According to the New Testament Gospels, Jesus, on his fateful entry into Jerusalem before Passover, was received by a great crowd of people. Jesus was arrested and purportedly tried by the Sanhedrin. After the trial, Jesus was handed over to Pontius Pilate, who duly tried him again and, at the urging of the people, had him crucified.
Then, Jesus laments over the capital: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it...See, your house is left to you, desolate" (23:37-38). And finally, Jesus predicts the demise of the Temple: "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down" (24:2b).[10]
The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (27:25). This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that "all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept the responsibility and blame for Jesus' death." As discussed previously, the one time that the passion narratives break away from the method of "prophecy historicized" is when the Gospels assert Jewish responsibility and Roman innocence. Thus, Matthew "invented" this verse to address the fate of Jerusalem as just punishment for its rejection of Jesus.[11]
Shelly Matthews writes:[12]
| “ | In Matthew, as in many books of the New Testament, the idea that Christ followers are persecuted is pervasive. Blessings are pronounced on those who are persecuted for righteousness sake in the Sermon on the Mount; the woes against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 culminate in predictions that they will "kill and crucify, flog in synagogues, and pursue from town to town;" the parable of the banquet in Matthew 22 implies that servants of the king will be killed by those to whom they are sent. | ” |
The pervasiveness of the accusation that Jews persecute, kill or intend to kill Christ believers in Matthew is accompanied by a dearth of specifics regarding the charges, the motives, the causes, and the specific agents of the persecution.
Douglas Hare noted that the Gospel of Matthew avoids sociological explanations for persecution:[13]
| “ | Only the theological cause, the obduracy of Israel is of interest to the author [of Matthew]. Nor is the mystery of Israel's sin probed, whether in terms of dualistic categories or in terms of predestinarianism. Israel's sin is a fact of history which requires no explanation. | ” |
The Gospel of John is the only one that collectively describes the enemies of Jesus as "the Jews". In none of the other gospels do "the Jews" demand, en masse, the death of Jesus; instead, the plot to put him to death is always presented as coming from a small group of priests and rulers, the Sadducees. John's gospel is thus the primary source of the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus, which later became fixed in the Christian mind.[14]
For example, in John 7:1-9[15] Jesus moves around in Galilee but avoids Judea, because "the Jews" were looking for a chance to kill him. In 7:12-13 some said "he is a good man" whereas others said he deceives the people, but these were all "whispers", no one would speak publicly for "fear of the Jews". Jewish rejection is also recorded in 7:45-52, 8:39-59, 10:22-42, and 12:36-43. 12:42 says many did believe, but they kept it private, for fear the Pharisees would exclude them from the Synagogue. After the crucifixion, 20:19 has the disciples hiding behind locked doors, "for fear of the Jews".
In several places John's gospel also associates "the Jews" with darkness and with the devil. In John 8:37-39;[16] 44-47,[17] Jesus says, speaking to a group of Pharisees:
| “ | I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God. | ” |
This laid the groundwork for centuries of Christian characterization of Jews as agents of the devil, a characterization which found its way into medieval popular religion and eventually into passion plays .
However, John's use of the term 'Jews' is a complex and debated area of biblical scholarship. The author most likely considered himself Jewish and was probably speaking to a largely Jewish community.[18] New Testament scholar J.G. Dunn writes:
| “ | "The Fourth Evangelist is still operating within a context of intra-Jewish factional dispute, although the boundaries and definitions themselves are part of that dispute. It is clear beyond doubt that once the Fourth Gospel is removed from that context, and the constraints of that context, it was all too easily read as an anti-Jewish polemic and became a tool of anti-semitism. But it is highly questionable whether the Fourth Evangelist himself can fairly be indicted for either anti-Judaism or anti-semitism."[19] | ” |
Hence it is argued that "the Jews" properly refers to the Jewish religious authorities (Sanhedrin), and not the Jewish people as a whole. It is because of this controversy that some modern English translations, such as Today's New International Version, remove the term "Jews" and replace it with more specific terms to avoid anti-Semitic connotations. For example, the Jesus Seminar translates this as "Judeans", i.e. residents of Judea, in contrast to residents of Galilee. Most critics of these translations, while conceding this point, argue that the context (since it is obvious that Jesus, John himself, and the other disciples were all Jews) makes John's true meaning sufficiently clear, and that a literal translation is preferred.
Paul Jones writes:
| “ | The Gospel of John has the dubious distinction of being both the most popular Gospel (considered the most "spiritual" of the canonical Gospels) and the most anti-Jewish. The term "the Jews" (Ioudaios) in the Gospel functions as a "hostile collective stereotype" and is identified with "evil" and the "devil." Yet the Gospel of John is intimately connected with Judaism. Jesus is thoroughly Jewish in this Gospel. His life revolves around the Jewish festivals, and his identity as the Messiah is confirmed by the Jewish scriptures. According to John 20:31, the book was written so "that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God." Christology, therefore, is the key to understanding both the theology of the Gospel and its strained relationship with the larger Pharisaic Jewish tradition. | ” |
Some critics suggest that the text displays a shift in blame away from the Roman provincial government, which actually carried out the execution, towards the Jewish authorities, with the intention of rendering Christianity more palatable in Roman circles.
Successive generations of Christians read in the Gospel of John the collective guilt of Jews, universally and in all generations, in the death of Christ. John's use of the collective expression "the Jews" is likely explained by the historical circumstances in which and audience for which he wrote. After the destruction of the Temple in the year 70, the Jewish priesthood, and thus the class of the Sadducees, no longer existed. As John wrote his Gospel after these events, for a Gentile audience, he spoke generically of Jews, rather than specifying a group within Judaism that no longer existed and that would have been unfamiliar to his readers.[20]
Most commentators consider that Jesus' statements refer to the specific group of Pharisees he was addressing, or possibly the Pharisaic movement as a whole, but not to the Jewish people as a whole, which would have included Jesus and all his followers. On the other hand, some retort that Rabbinic Judaism is the heir of the Pharisees and that the verse should still be considered an attack on Judaism as a whole.
It has been argued that John's descriptions of the Jews ought to be read in context of the persecution of Christians in the New Testament. John is commonly thought to be the "last apostle", given that eleven of the twelve original apostles met a martyr's death, having been killed in unusual circumstances. Stephen is executed by stoning.[21] Before his conversion, Saul (who later became better known as Paul of Tarsus) puts followers of Jesus in prison.[22][23][24] After his conversion, Saul is whipped at various times by Jewish authorities,[25] and is accused by Jewish authorities before Roman courts.[26]
In many places in the New Testament, the Jewish nation is condemned and assigned punishment by the quotation of the prophetic literature of the Jewish scriptures in terms at least as condemnatory as the words of Jesus.[27]
See also: Christianity and anti-Semitism and Christian-Jewish reconciliation.
As one example, the Catholic Church already denounced antisemitic views held by Christians in the past with a series of statements beginning in 1937 (cf. Mit Brennender Sorge of Pope Pius XI). In the decree Nostra Aetate, Pope Paul VI in Council declared that:
Norman Beck, professor of theology and classical languages at Texas Lutheran University, has proposed that Christian lectionaries remove what he calls "… the specific texts identified as most problematic …".[28] Beck identifies what he deems to be offensive passages in the New Testament and indicates the instances in which these texts or portions thereof are included in major lectionary series.
Daniel Goldhagen, former Associate Professor of Political Science at Harvard University, also suggested in his book A Moral Reckoning that the Roman Catholic Church should change its doctrine and the accepted Biblical canon to excise statements he labels as anti-Semitic, to indicate that "The Jews' way to God is as legitimate as the Christian way".[29] See also Dual covenant theology.