How anti Jewish was the early church

What would constitute the "early" church for you?

The Urgemeinde? Nobody knows. Big parts of it still had a distinctly Jewish identity and could only be meaningfully said to be anti-Jewish if you cann Martin Luther anti-christian (he, too, opposed the traditional religious authority). At the same time, the scriptural foundations of later antijudaism come from the environment of the Urgemeinde, even though nobody really knows who or what John mean with the "Jews".

The early episcopal churches? It varied. There are pointers that Christians used synagogues as late as the second century AD, and to the average outsider, the difference must have appearted small. At the same time we find the occasional rant that looks more at home with later luminaries in the Cyril of Alexandria mode.

The imperial church? It had a definite streak. Bishops oversaw the destruction of synagogues and lobbied for discriminatory legislation, and some highly respected theologians wrote stuff that Der Stürmer gratefully copied (they had better writing skills than the average Nazi hack and charged no fees). However, while an anti-Jewish theological position was universal (they had killed Jesus, the Gospels said so), it did not universally translate into active hostility. Some churchmen were on friendly terms with Jews (Yes, I know, "Some of my best friends...", but they weren't haters, just garden-variety biased). In the post-Roman world, things could vary enormously, from the studied silence of much of the Merovingian church to the vicious discrimination the Visigothic bishops and kings imposed.

With all of this we need to keep in mind that the church here means the decisionmakers and thinkers whose writings survive. The average churchgoer was most likely largely clueless, unless stirred into a temporary fervour by guys like St Shenute. Gregory of Tours records an incident in which Christians, good secular Christian folk accultured into their tradition, go to synagogue every Sabbath instead of church on Sunday because they like it better, and when challenged, say it makes no difference (or, depending on your reading of the text, don't know the difference, though I think that interpretation is suspect).

Quoted for truth
 
You don't even have to rely on "evil counselors" for Pilate! The Gosepels (particularly John) has the very "morally perplexed" Pilate asking the Jews what they think he should do with their "king". "The Jews" reply that Pilate should crucify him and this particularly odeous line is given to them, which is one of the direct bases of Christian anti-Semitism: "His [Jesus'] blood be on our [the Jews'] heads and the heads of our children!" You couldn't ask for a more direct statement of "blood guilt" than this!


The whole business is of course very "sus". If Pilate really thought that Jesus had claimed to be King of the Jews (which would be plain treason against Rome) he had no option but to pass sentence of death. If he really asked the Jews that question, it could only have been rhetorical, since asking it would show that he had already made up his mind.

It's also very unlikely that a Jewish mob would have shouted "Crucify him" as in Jewish eyes that mode of death was an abomination. So the whole scene is doubtful, though still just possible if it is assumed that there were a lot of non-Jews in the crowd.
 
Top