Less anti-semetic middle ages europe

[Lexyflop]

Ok so this is a very broad question but doing research on medieval europe and often the Jewish community’s story during this period it’s been on my mind.

What if the Bible did not have anti semetic texts or messages? or at least a reduced amount. and perhaps one or two moments of Jesus saying “verily i say, respect your brothers of david” or something along those lines. if the crucifixion was specifically shown to be a roman thing. (which would cause difficulties in getting the romans to adopt christianity but placing the blame on the disliked Tiberius and maybe putting even more emphasis on redemption through Christ could help in this regard?).

How would this affect Jewish history during the middle ages and even beyond? Even if this doesn’t completely get rid of antisemitism could it at least shape a society where it would be far less violent. Or is this all too ASB.

(Apologies if anything here is worded in an offensive manner.)

 

[Silver01]

What if the Bible did not have anti semetic texts or messages? or at least a reduced amount. and perhaps one or two moments of Jesus saying “verily i say, respect your brothers of david” or something along those lines. if the crucifixion was specifically shown to be a roman thing. (which would cause difficulties in getting the romans to adopt christianity but placing the blame on the disliked Tiberius and maybe putting even more emphasis on redemption through Christ could help in this regard?).

it does not the likely for example the famous jewish curse of Gmatthew was never supposed to condem all jews for all time that is later interpreation and even gJohn taken in the context of a intra jewish conflict as by 90 ad since by this time chirstianity and judaisim had not yet fully split, the second century is really our turning point as it became more gentile and the jewish church of jerusalem continues to loose its importance due to the Bar Kojba revolt.

 

[desmirelle]

Antisemism in the Bible? What version are you reading? The Holy Bible used by non- Catholics is not antisemitic unless you do not understand the prophecies of the Old Testament.

When Rome 'ruled the world' the major objection to first Jews, and then Chrstians was their monotheism and dismissal of Roman gods. In the case of the Jews, and some early Christians sects (which started early), their dietary restrictions were also a source of disdain and confusion.

 

[pompejus]

The problem medieval Europe had with Jews had less to do with the bible, but more with the fact that they were outsiders. Medieval Europe was very homoginous. Basicly everyone was the same. Everyone was catholic. So there was one group of people who weren't catholic, who acted differently, who even looked differently and they mostly kept to themself. Because they were different they stood out and people do not like people who are different from them. So they became more and more distrusted and even hated. It didn't matter what the bible said about them. Even if the bible said: "Jews are cool! Give them free icecream!" medieval Europe would have still disliked them, simply because they were different.

BTW it also happened to several other groups, like the Roma.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

The problem medieval Europe had with Jews had less to do with the bible, but more with the fact that they were outsiders. Medieval Europe was very homoginous. Basicly everyone was the same. Everyone was catholic. So there was one group of people who weren't catholic, who acted differently, who even looked differently and they mostly kept to themself. Because they were different they stood out and people do not like people who are different from them. So they became more and more distrusted and even hated. It didn't matter what the bible said about them. Even if the bible said: "Jews are cool! Give them free icecream!" medieval Europe would have still disliked them, simply because they were different.

BTW it also happened to several other groups, like the Roma.

Sometimes Catholic clergy in newly christianized European countries supported Jewish immigration as tool to strenghten Christian faith among recently baptised pagans, making Biblical stories more credible for them: "You see? These guys from the Bible are real! So is the rest of the book"

 

[Nyegosh]

You have to consider that at the time, the "anti-semitic" parts were "internal", that is, aimed at certain factions within the Jews. Without these, it wouldn't really make much sense. The New Testament is about a person who primarily criticizes the people he's most acquainted with - other Jews. This was a politically unstable time. Think of it as containing politically charged posts against a party on social media, for example.

Either way, this is completely irrelevant to anti-jewish sentiment in Europe or elsewhere. It was a convenient cudgel, but never the actual reason, which is far simpler and has to do with far more base things: simple ingroup-outgroup distinction. There's no such thing as a cherished and tolerated minority anywhere in the world. You don't consider yourself a part of the ingroup that is the majority in a certain society, you get hated on. Very simple.

 

[The Link]

Personally I never saw anything antisemitic in the Bible. Jesus used to point out the flaws of humanity in general, not the flaws of particularly the Jews.

 

[Lexyflop]

Thank you all for these responses! This has honestly been pretty educative especially

The problem medieval Europe had with Jews had less to do with the bible, but more with the fact that they were outsiders. Medieval Europe was very homoginous. Basicly everyone was the same. Everyone was catholic. So there was one group of people who weren't catholic, who acted differently, who even looked differently and they mostly kept to themself. Because they were different they stood out and people do not like people who are different from them. So they became more and more distrusted and even hated. It didn't matter what the bible said about them. Even if the bible said: "Jews are cool! Give them free icecream!" medieval Europe would have still disliked them, simply because they were different.

BTW it also happened to several other groups, like the Roma.

this reply.

i’ll fully admit i was pretty naive to the nature of this, as well as ignorant to the context in which certain texts were written.

it does not the likely for example the famous jewish curse of Gmatthew was never supposed to condem all jews for all time that is later interpreation and even gJohn taken in the context of a intra jewish conflict as by 90 ad since by this time chirstianity and judaisim had not yet fully split, the second century is really our turning point as it became more gentile and the jewish church of jerusalem continues to loose its importance due to the Bar Kojba revolt.

so thank you for the information. i’ll definitely try to look into these aspects more in the future and be more aware of them.


thank you very much

 

[Lexyflop]

Also i wanna say sorry about the title of the thread cus i realise outright saying the bible is antisemitic is a pretty offensive statement to make and i should’ve worded it far better (e.g don’t post right before going to sleep). so apologies for that and i’ll be a lot more careful in future

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Also i wanna say sorry about the title of the thread cus i realise outright saying the bible is antisemitic is a pretty offensive statement to make and i should’ve worded it far better (e.g don’t post right before going to sleep). so apologies for that and i’ll be a lot more careful in future

I think it is possible to change thread titles, though I don't know how. The moderators should be able to help you out.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Also i wanna say sorry about the title of the thread

it is possible to change thread titles

Between thread title and 1st post, there is —

Watch • • • v

Hit that downward arrow and pick “Edit thread”

 

[Dancing Fool]

if the crucifixion was specifically shown to be a roman thing

The Holy Bible used by non- Catholics is not antisemitic

the famous jewish curse of Gmatthew was never supposed to condem all jews for all time that is later interpreation

Does Gmatthew mean “Gnostic Matthew” or the Gospel of Matthew ? ?

And I’ve heard from several different sources that the Gospel of Matthew is more anti-semitic than the other three gospels.

————————————————

The problem is that Jewish leaders turned Jesus over to the Romans knowing full well what would happen. And this internal betrayal strikes more deeply than a mere internal enemy.

As an analogy, the Nazis invaded and occupied Norway during World War II. But after the war, the people had a harder time forgiving their own internal “Quislings.”

——/—————

* and I tend to think modern-day Catholics are less anti-semitic than than, perhaps, evangelical Christians, or no appreciable difference.

And the Spanish Inquisition was a long time ago when the Catholic Church was the only game in town.

 

[Silver01]

Does Gmatthew mean “Gnostic Matthew” or the Gospel of Matthew ? ?

And I’ve heard from several different sources that the Gospel of Matthew is more anti-semitic than the other three gospels.

Gospel also the most antisemitic has always been "Gjonh" GMatthew was likely written in 80s ad to a community of exiled chirstian Jews

The problem is that Jewish leaders turned Jesus over to the Romans knowing full well what would happen. And this internal betrayal strikes more deeply than a mere internal enemy.

Yes Catherine Hamilton, in The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood and the End of Exile says the themes running through Matthew is that of shedding innocent blood (Mt. 2.16-18; 23.34-39; 27.3-10, and here in 24-25). In her mind the point is not that the people are asking to be blamed as much as Matthew is showing that they knew they were killing an innocent man.

 

[Lexyflop]

Between thread title and 1st post, there is —

Watch • • • v

Hit that downward arrow and pick “Edit thread”

thank you! thread title has been changed 👍