How Can we eliminate or minimize antisemitism in Christianity?

Alright, this is a question posed to the forum because I absolutely do not know any of the specifics, just some vague ideas, such as the black plague pogroms, the crusades, minor doctrinal allowances, etc.

I would like experts to try their hand at this rather than me.

Therefore I pose the question of how we can, while making history as convergent as possible, eliminate Christian or I guess mainly Catholic antisemitism.

The Ideas regarding convergence is history's trajectory should remain similar but there will be fewer or no pogroms, persecution, holocausts, etc.
 
Perhaps emphasize that crucifixion was ROMAN form of execution and that the Romans were the ones who executed Jesus for treason against their occupying government. It does seem odd that Pontius Pilate was portrayed in the Gospels as somewhat a wishy washy people pleaser but in every other known account of him, he was rather ruthless and despotic.
 
If you ask me... The best way is to make Christianity itself more Jewish.

Get rid of some pagan ideas like the Trinity, maybe?
 
Sadly, I think this is more a cultural/societal issue than one of religious doctrine.

It's not the only reason, but a big reason anti-semitism has been around so long comes down to the burden of xenophobia. The Jewish people have historically been a nomadic people -- the Old Testament is a long history of our people wandering righteously, settling down, losing sight of our foundations, losing our homeland, and wandering righteously again. I'm not saying that's the modern Jewish message, or that the nomadic ideal informs all Jews. I'm certainly not qualified to speak for anyone's beliefs. But as an ethnic religion, we have an unfortunate combination of traits. We're a group of nomads that refuses to wholly assimilate to the surrounding culture.

I can understand both sides to an extent. Hadrian's journals include his confusion and frustration at the actions of his Jewish subjects. Why are they so mad about us reconstructing Jerusalem and sacrificing a pig to consecrate it? Pigs are sacred to Demeter! Do they even care about fertility?

If you're not facepalming now, you should be. But the issue is a dangerous diametric in our basic thought patterns. On the one hand, all people should be free to live as they like so long as they don't hurt anyone. The Jews had and have every right to live a life separate from the surrounding country. On the other hand, most people -- especially miseducated people -- distrust what they cannot understand. Our refusal to assimilate has a tendency to frustrate governments and confuse our neighbors. Add a healthy dose of fear and you have an explosive mixture. Look at the Romani for another example. They're some form of Christian, if I'm not mistaken, but they've been persecuted and discriminated against for centuries too.

I wish I knew how to solve the curse of xenophobia, but the human problem we all have with the "the stranger" is a deeply rooted disease.
 
Last edited:
Alright, this is a question posed to the forum because I absolutely do not know any of the specifics, just some vague ideas, such as the black plague pogroms, the crusades, minor doctrinal allowances, etc.

I would like experts to try their hand at this rather than me.

Therefore I pose the question of how we can, while making history as convergent as possible, eliminate Christian or I guess mainly Catholic antisemitism.

The Ideas regarding convergence is history's trajectory should remain similar but there will be fewer or no pogroms, persecution, holocausts, etc.

I'm not sure that very much can be done at all, to be honest.

With few exceptions, the Church as a whole has always tended to condemn antisemitism, but tends to be ignored on this point.

Truly answering this question basically requires answering the question of "Why were Europeans historically antisemitic?", which is a tough question to answer (but...it's probably not people so many people are genuinely angry at the Jews for killing Jesus). We can note a few things, like: it was often convenient for local rulers to have small group of people hated by all to serve them, or that rulers enjoyed being able to take loans and then kill the creditors, or as in Venice simply to outright extort the collective Jewish community. Add to that the fact that most Medieval Catholics weren't exactly brimming with tolerance towards people of any non-Catholic religion (or even just the wrong strain of Catholicism), and antisemitism seems somewhat less extraordinary. For example: was anti-Jewish violence and pogroms notably more extreme than anti-Cathar violence in the Albigensian Crusade?
 

jahenders

Banned
I think the money angle is pretty significant, but it stemmed in part from other prejudicial practices/beliefs. Early Christianity held that usury was bad, while local politics often limited Jewish ability to own land and such things). Therefore, Jews filled a business niche by becoming (in essence) bankers. This was especially true in Western Europe (Italy, France, Spain, etc). So, then when some Jews made considerable money at this and some locals felt cheated, this strengthened hostility toward the (already somewhat alien) Jewish minority.

It's then common in almost any society to blame "outsiders" whenever things go poorly (or just for political gain). Since some Jews dressed or acted "different" from the local norm, they could often be considered "alien", even if they'd lived in that society for centuries.

I'm not sure that very much can be done at all, to be honest.

With few exceptions, the Church as a whole has always tended to condemn antisemitism, but tends to be ignored on this point.

Truly answering this question basically requires answering the question of "Why were Europeans historically antisemitic?", which is a tough question to answer (but...it's probably not people so many people are genuinely angry at the Jews for killing Jesus). We can note a few things, like: it was often convenient for local rulers to have small group of people hated by all to serve them, or that rulers enjoyed being able to take loans and then kill the creditors, or as in Venice simply to outright extort the collective Jewish community. Add to that the fact that most Medieval Catholics weren't exactly brimming with tolerance towards people of any non-Catholic religion (or even just the wrong strain of Catholicism), and antisemitism seems somewhat less extraordinary. For example: was anti-Jewish violence and pogroms notably more extreme than anti-Cathar violence in the Albigensian Crusade?
 
I think the money angle is pretty significant, but it stemmed in part from other prejudicial practices/beliefs. Early Christianity held that usury was bad, while local politics often limited Jewish ability to own land and such things). Therefore, Jews filled a business niche by becoming (in essence) bankers. This was especially true in Western Europe (Italy, France, Spain, etc). So, then when some Jews made considerable money at this and some locals felt cheated, this strengthened hostility toward the (already somewhat alien) Jewish minority.

It's then common in almost any society to blame "outsiders" whenever things go poorly (or just for political gain). Since some Jews dressed or acted "different" from the local norm, they could often be considered "alien", even if they'd lived in that society for centuries.

Absolutely, though I'll add that Jews were sometimes actually compelled to lend money out by various kings who liked to tax the process.

Ultimately, though, we arrive at the same conclusion: hating Jews had little to do with actual religious doctrine.
 
Well, there were lots of factors leading to anti-semitism, however religious doctrine/belief was involved. It was not until John XXIII that the Church "absolved" the Jews as a people from the crime of putting Christ to death. During the Middle Ages there were numerous instances of "debates" between Church theologians and Jewish rabbis which were always won by the Church theologians and usually resulted in Jewish books such as the Talmud being destroyed. The "religious" as opposed to "social/economic" basis of anti-semitism started early. After all the Jews rejected Jesus as a prophet and the Messiah - this made them worse than the pagans, who were receptive to the new gospel. It was only after the majority of the Jews rejected the preachings of Paul and others that the effort at missionizing turned to the pagans.

Of course the "religious" and "social" elements of anti-semitism were mutually supporting, but both were there. IMHO unlike most previous religions, Christianity was aggressively missionary to all comers, and also saw itself as the exclusive answer/path to salvation. Islam, which has also very strong social and religious anti-semitic streaks sees itself the same way. The combination of a religion that is highly exclusive in the sense of seeing itself as the only pathway to God combined with being quite missionary, faced with a group that clings to the root religious beliefs that refuses to accept the new revelations results in an environment that is a perfect storm for philosophies like anti-semitism.
 
Perhaps emphasize that crucifixion was ROMAN form of execution and that the Romans were the ones who executed Jesus for treason against their occupying government. It does seem odd that Pontius Pilate was portrayed in the Gospels as somewhat a wishy washy people pleaser but in every other known account of him, he was rather ruthless and despotic.

From what I understand is the early Christians knew their faith would never be allowed to be spread if the Romans were made to look truly responsible for the death of their supposed god and messiah.

So they definitely downplayed the role of Pontius and Roman authorities where it appeared more like he simply followed the will of the Jewish mob, when in reality no Roman of his stature would have listened to the will of a Jewish mob.
 
From what I understand is the early Christians knew their faith would never be allowed to be spread if the Romans were made to look truly responsible for the death of their supposed god and messiah.

So they definitely downplayed the role of Pontius and Roman authorities where it appeared more like he simply followed the will of the Jewish mob, when in reality no Roman of his stature would have listened to the will of a Jewish mob.

Wait then what did the mob really want?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
From what I understand is the early Christians knew their faith would never be allowed to be spread if the Romans were made to look truly responsible for the death of their supposed god and messiah.

So they definitely downplayed the role of Pontius and Roman authorities where it appeared more like he simply followed the will of the Jewish mob, when in reality no Roman of his stature would have listened to the will of a Jewish mob.

Don't see this one- the Romans had no trouble writing all kinds of vile things about their former Emperors. Jesus was crucified under Tiberius- the Romans write really really nasty things about Tiberius

As for Anti-semitism, its not a Christian doctrine nor could it since almost all the original Christians were Jewish by birth. Traditional Church doctrine would be that what we think of Judaism is a distortion and that Christians are the true Jews
 
Wait then what did the mob really want?

They wanted to see a Jewish troublemaker executed.

It is likely the mob consisted largely or entirely of non-Jews. A Jewish mob would never have shouted "Crucify him" as Jews, quite rightly, regarded that form of death as an abomination.

The basic problem was the 4C reconciliation between Christians and the Roman State. This meant that the Roman authorities (esp Pilate) had to be whitewashed and another scapegoat found. Never much doubt who that would be.
 
Wait then what did the mob really want?

I'll start off by saying I am a biblical skeptic and I take everything that is in every holy book with a grain of salt from a historical purpose. I highly doubt the story of Jesus that is in the bible is anywhere near 100% accurate to events that happened in real life.

Regardless of that my point was that if the other Jews wanted Jesus executed for being a false messiah or not, from the perspective of Pontius he would not have listened to them unless he under Roman authority wanted Jesus crucified himself.

The Romans of that period didn't tend to bend much to the whims of the Jews if any such matter, especially in what could be seen as a localized dispute.

The Romans crucifying Jesus would be because they wanted him dead and made an example.
 
Don't see this one- the Romans had no trouble writing all kinds of vile things about their former Emperors. Jesus was crucified under Tiberius- the Romans write really really nasty things about Tiberius

As for Anti-semitism, its not a Christian doctrine nor could it since almost all the original Christians were Jewish by birth. Traditional Church doctrine would be that what we think of Judaism is a distortion and that Christians are the true Jews

Yes that's just it the Romans had no such problem but it's a historical fact that from almost the get go Roman authorities were suspicious of Christians not to mention in the period of the Jewish revolts it would be understandable as well for this newly broken free sect to try to distinguish itself from Judaism.

As mentioned the depiction of Pontius in the bible does not match up very well at all to other historical writings of him.

If Christianity from the get-go came across as an anti-roman breakaway proselytizing jewish sect, it would have likely faced even steeper Roman suppression than it did IOTL.
 
It is likely the mob consisted largely or entirely of non-Jews. A Jewish mob would never have shouted "Crucify him" as Jews, quite rightly, regarded that form of death as an abomination.

If people always acted in accordance with their religion, Christians would all love their Jewish neighbours, and this thread would never have been started.

The basic problem was the 4C reconciliation between Christians and the Roman State. This meant that the Roman authorities (esp Pilate) had to be whitewashed and another scapegoat found. Never much doubt who that would be.

That 4th-century reconciliation took place over two hundred years after the Gospels were written.

Plus, there's no evidence that the 4th-century Church wanted to whitewash the Roman authorities of anything. On the contrary, they were really really big on the cults of various martyrs -- who had, of course, been killed by the Romans. That's hardly the attitude you'd expect of people who wanted to absolve the Roman Empire for all the bad things it had done.
 

jahenders

Banned
Those are unsupported (and, likely, unsupportable) assertions. Yes, He was a troublemaker in disrupting the 'normal order.'

We certainly don't (and can't) know the exact composition of the mob. However, there's no valid reason to assume it didn't consist primarily of local Jews (the main people around AND the people suggested by the only primary written chronicle of the event).

There's also no logical reason to doubt that some of the Jewish leaders of the time (Sanhedrin, etc) would be deeply troubled by Christ's teachings (and, potentially, Him causing problems with Rome). Thus, it's reasonable to accept (to some degree) the written record that they wanted him silenced. Whether "Crucify him" is a perfect translation or a Romanized translation of a mob calling for his death, it's impossible to say. However, calling for his death (whether from Pontius or from the mob) isn't surprising. Yes, many Jews would consider crucifixion an abominable death, but they might not mind it being afflicted on someone they hated.

Finally, Pontius certainly had the power to kill, not kill, free, or whatever Christ and he could have had the mob scattered if he desired. However, it's not unreasonable that he would give some thought to strident complaints of the local majority (who had rebelled multiple times in the past).

They wanted to see a Jewish troublemaker executed.

It is likely the mob consisted largely or entirely of non-Jews. A Jewish mob would never have shouted "Crucify him" as Jews, quite rightly, regarded that form of death as an abomination.

The basic problem was the 4C reconciliation between Christians and the Roman State. This meant that the Roman authorities (esp Pilate) had to be whitewashed and another scapegoat found. Never much doubt who that would be.
 

jahenders

Banned
It's certainly reasonable to take such things with a grain of salt. However, in studying history of that era (and before AND after), I'm frequently amazed at how often historians reject what's said in the bible (a written record compiled around that era), but are more than willing to base whole histories or theories on small fragments of cuneiform tablets or on allusions from various mythologies.

Consider the debates on 'historical King Arthur' (from hundreds of years later). There are a million different theories, all based on either writings of known-poor historians, compilations from centuries later, or vague references in Welsh (or other) mythologies.

I'll start off by saying I am a biblical skeptic and I take everything that is in every holy book with a grain of salt from a historical purpose. I highly doubt the story of Jesus that is in the bible is anywhere near 100% accurate to events that happened in real life.
.
 
Top