Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tsrebnick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Corte128.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Notes, removal of POV terms[edit]

Noahide Law of Judaism. The two issues came to be linked in a theological discussion within the Christian community as to whether the coming of the Messiah (First or Second Coming) could or did annul some (see Cafeteria Christianity) or all (see Antinomianism) biblical law in what came to be called a New Covenant.

Ok. On first appearance I see the term "Cafeteria Christianity", which, if you visit our helpful Wikipedia page on it states it is a "...a derogatory term used by some Christians, and others, to accuse other Christian individuals or denominations..." So. That part is obviously POV, and would probably be offensive to people holding the views labeled as "Cafeteria Christianity". The last POV statement I found here was: "...in what came to be called a..." I replaced this with the far less POV: "...in what many refer to as a..." Next we have the following language "biblical law", which carries it's own religious and theological baggage. So I changed it to the non-offensive and not as POV "judiac law". If you want a different term, we should discuss it here. I also did some minor changes to the grammatical structure it make it look nice.-jamiles1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiles1000 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this page go???[edit]

Anti-Judaism and anti-semitism are the same thing. The former is basically a workaround to being labeled, "anti-semitic," when instead, we should be trying to legitimize the concept altogether! It should not be wrong to challenge Jewish interests no matter what it is called. Not only is anti-judaism anti-semitism, but any group claiming to be "anti-judaic" is a "hate-group," as defined by the SPLC, which along with groups like the ADL is where these definitions keep coming from. This is basically a battle over language, where anti-judaism is the defense's way of saying anti-semitism. I do not believe we should be on the defense. We are anti-semites, members of a hate-group (eg. the American people), and we ought to be proud of that! After all, the United States government itself is a hate-group, or any group that has an enemy that consists of an entire class of people, for example terrorists.

Furthermore, there is good reason to be "anti-semitic." For instance, consider the 2009 British court case that concluded the entire Jewish religion is inherently racist. That case was resolved when a well-funded Jewish organization lead the advisement of an appeal process. However, for anyone following the case, the uninfluenced decisions evinced beyond a reasonable doubt the racist nature of the Jewish religion. see: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/11/08/from-zionism-is-racism-to-judaism-is-racism/

I have one last comment to make. Does anyone really think that someone can get away with saying something obviously opposed to Jewish interests by saying the remark "wasn't antisemitic; it was anti-Judaic!"? That is total nonsense. Just distribute David Duke pamphlets and get it over with. Qqminuss (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who (or what) gives people permission to move pages around without any form of discussion? Last time I checked someone (I believe it was HS) had proposed merging this with Antisemitism, but there weren't even any discussions for that. This article had been rightly called "Anti-Judaism" for as long as I can remember. What was the rationale behind moving it to Religious antisemitism? WP:POINT? ==Taxico 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT seems to be to base on a definition by one historian (namely Langmuir) and artificially split the content between several articles describing pretty much the same phenomenon, Judenhass. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SNIPE! - crz crztalk 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things are always more complicated once you introduce religious belief into the equation. If an angel appeared to me and convinced me, beyond a doubt, that tomorrow your house will catch on fire, for me to not warn you would clearly be anti-Humus from my point of view, though from your point of view, rousing you to run around and double check all your pilot lights would clearly be some form of harassment, so warning you would be anti-Humus. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; since no one really knows whether or not there's going to be a fire. Sometimes, like Meister Eckhart said, "the devils are really angels..." and probably vice versa. But I have ceased expecting any sort of talmudic dialogue here; go ahead, snipe away

. -- Kendrick7talk 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this has been pointed out elsewhere, but a google search of "religious antisemitism" gets 1820 hits, whereas a Google search of "anti-Judaism" gets 140,000 hits. Why would this page simply redirect to the other? Also, there appears to be quite different material on each topic. I'm reinstating the page, please explain if you disagree.Mackan79 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be merged with religious antisemitism and the names changed to "anti-Judaism and religious antisemitism" because they are closely related (and some would argue), interchangable subjects. They shouldn't be separated into different articles but into subs of one article. Guy Montag 09:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have two articles, and then perhaps a common section on their interaction? Judging by Google, "anti-Judaism" is about 70 times more common as a phrase, while on Google book search it comes up with 7 times as many hits. If anything, thus, it'd seem there should be an article on anti-Judaism, with a subsection on religious antisemitism and how they interact. This certainly could also be discussed prominently at the outset.
Certainly the issues are related, and some would argue they're interchangable, but several have also argued that they're not. Doesn't this risk POV, then, simply to combine them into the same subject? Google books gives me at least 5 books on anti-Judaism (word in title), while not turning up any books about "religious antisesmitism." That said, I can't see how this combination helps WP, or how Anti-Judaism gets no article except as related to religious antisemitism.

Mackan79 16:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anti-Judaism is more prominent academic subject then it would make sense to merge religious antisemitism as a sub srticle within anti-Judaism. But there must be a historic relation from theological rivarly and antagonism that "evolves" (without using too determinist a language) into religious antisemitism. The article just wouldn't be complete without what many historians academics etc. conclude to be its end result.

Guy Montag 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the status quo only a matter of weeks ago. Some editors seem to feel rather strongly that there must be an article about religious antisemitism, though I object to that all-encompassing definition that equates anti-Judaism to anti-Semitism. It has a real "hangman of history" feel to it. I have no interest in whitewashing how one has historically and repeatedly led to the other. But it's like the relationship between alcohol and cirrhosis. Drinking too much alchohol can, but doesn't have to, cause cirrhosis. Cirrhosis has other causes besides alchohol. Everyone knows cirhrosis is a bad thing; but various divisions in thought exist on the evils or benefits of alcohol. You wouldn't try to have one article entitled alcohol and cirrhosis though, and you definitely wouldn't have alcohol solely explained as a subtopic of cirrhosis. -- Kendrick7talk 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC) and, as Jesus turned water into wine, there is even theological debate on the matter....[reply]
That's an awfully weak argument, Kendrick7, especially because there is an article called alcoholic liver disease and because religious anti-Semitism is only one of many articles about subtopics of anti-Semitism. Btw, there are many different kinds of cirrhosis as well, each with its own Wikipedia article. --GHcool 05:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think the problem would be having alcoholic liver disease in place of both alcohol and cirrhosis. In any case, I've yet to see why the main article should be on "Religious Antisemitism," when much much more seems to have been written about "Anti-Judaism." Does anyone have an answer? Does anyone have a source on "Religious Antisemitism" as such? It seems to me from what Kendrick is saying that the siutation a few weeks ago made a lot more sense. Mackan79 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that looking at other anti-Xism articles around the wikipedia aren't very illuminating, such as anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-capitalism and anti-Irishism. Anti-Islam redirects to Islamophobia; can a person only be anti-Islam if they are afraid of Muslims? I doubt that just as much as claim by Humus above that anti-Judaism is only motivated by hatred of Jews (Judenhaas). On one end, I certainly think you can be anti-Communism without having some black hate in your heart for all communist people and likewise with anti-Capitalism; at the other extreme, it's hard to see how someone could subscribe to anti-Irishism without hating Irishpeople. For the most part, none of these articles cite their sources anyway. So this is all part of one big muddle. -- Kendrick7talk 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I think the wider discussion has been underway at religious antisemitism. Mackan79 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much, dear first poster! It isn't (!) all one and the same.

Antijudaism means you are hating jews for them being jews in a generalizational way, shape or form! Antisemitism also means, you are also generalizationally antizionist, antichristian and also antiislamic. By the way, the Gidas think, Merkel is a Jew and therefore has to be hated or worse killed for this trait of her. Reality: she is a christian believer believing in a group of christian believers linked to generalizational antijudaism. However, I think hating the lower-case looptail g for it being not so godly readable is a refined opinion. But hating the same lower-case looptail g for it being linked to or invented by Jews is a racist nonsense fake-argument. Hating a Jew or any other person for them being greed-orientated is not generalizational hate of Jews or other people, you are to be benounceable as an antigreeder/human rights activist. I made a grave mistake to generalizationally hate documents because they are documents (still yet possessed the hated, it was not deleted from the PC on my own, and I regretted my mistake! I am not planning anymore to hate documents senselessly because they are documents as else this would have lead to their burndown.) By the way, I am not anti-oil-industry, just anti oil-industry-greeders. See, sometimes it is better to throw away less plastic, start reusing, DIY and upcycling of this material in question and only throw stuff made out of this away in an environmentally-friendliest-possible way (this means you throw all recyclable plastics in the recycling bin, not in the rest waste bin). I love and prefer reusability of anything over throwing too much stuff away for nothing. My neighbours did this shitty business activity and other neighbours of mine already paid the price to this activity by them not or not always being able to use the underground floor storage area for people to visit and plan storage of stuff here. --2001:9E8:121A:4200:5538:DB50:9CE5:BE04 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection and dispute resolution[edit]

The page has been protected as a result of edit-warring between users. Please discuss the changes here and then request page unprotection, or contact me on my talk page when you have resolved the dispute. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of St. Paul[edit]

If this page ever becomes unprotected, someone will need to disambiguate St. Paul to Paul of Tarsus. Planetneutral 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation?[edit]

As discussed at Talk:Religious antisemitism, I'm wondering whether we may need mediation in regard to the proper treatment of these two articles, to resolve the basic issues: 1. Are the subjects different? 2. Different enough for different articles? 3. If not, which is the appropriate title? Mackan79 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Judaism and antisemitism and merge[edit]

What exactly is the difference between these two topics?--Sefringle 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you the theological answer, as it's a rather essentially a matter of religious belief. Christians, in particular Catholics (the majority Christian faith), believe that salvation (i.e. you go to heaven when you die) for a given soul is entirely up to the Lord God. But as best we are able to understand, accepting that Jesus is the Son of God is generally essential for such salvation for those who are aware of Jesus's message. That position is, naturally, anti-Judaic, in that Christians, who believe in supersessionism, do not believe Judaism has the full understanding of truth which the Lord God has revealed. To insist that anyone who believes in this is an anti-semite is both insulting to this faith, and dangerously, gives legitimacy to those who truly wish to do real (temporal) harm to those of the Jewish faith (or ethnicity) in this world, at which point mere anti-Judaism ends and actual anti-Semitism begins. -- Kendrick7talk 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hocus Pocus aside, a Semite is anyone from the Levant and Arabian Peninsula which includes Arabs and Yemenis (as well as Akkadian descendents and a few other peoples, but no one really cares about them anymore). Anti-Semitism is hatred of Semites plain and simple. So really Anti-Judaism is more correct term for what everyone is thinking. It's a case of people using a broad term to describe something very specific and thus strangling out the other parts. Or like when someone says the US will become a Second World nation without knowing that that means the USSR and its former allies. I strongly discourage favour conotation over denotation, as doing the former leads to our society becoming more ignorant. TheArchaeologist (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TheArchaeologist—I don't think it is "hocus-pocus"; it is actual usage. At Antisemitism we find: "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[2] and that has been its normal use since then.[3]" You'll have to check the citations at the actual article because they won't show up here. Bus stop (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, must confess I didn't really read the one above because I thought it was going to be some religious thing like you find all over the web w/o substance (I am religious but against people who get high off their own beliefs), but now I see it has some. I see what he was getting at, but I mean Jews are an ethnic group for the most part, though we can usually be sub-divided into the three groups as Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim. He is saying that anti-Judaism is against our faith and anti-Semitism is against us the Jews as a people or something like that. I still think that it works to the exclusion of other Semetic people and really there must be a term to be used for a hatred of everyone in the region. The difference we have in the quoted use is the connotation instead of denotation. :p TheArchaeologist (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TheArchaeologist, other sensible terms are anti-Israelism (with current redirect to "anti-Zionism"), anti-Zionism and Persecution of Jews. Gregkaye (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Concept[edit]

I believe should be a section which cites criticism of the concept. After all, rational criticism of a religon, in this case Judaism, is not the same thing as anti-Judaism sentiment. Padishah5000 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concept seems to be accepted as valid in the sources I've examined. The main source for the article was published in 1903 so this isn't a neologism, like Islamophobia, where there's been a lot of recent give-and-take on the concept's validity. While I won't claim behavior which emerges from religious conviction is rational, it's inaccurate to dismiss the history of anti-Judaism as driven by sentiment alone. I've compared anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism and neither have a criticism section of those parallel concepts. So I would be at a loss here. -- Kendrick7talk 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism template[edit]

The term is a synnomym fore antisemitism. Why was the template removed? Yahel Guhan 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole section comparing and contrasting the two terms: Anti-Judaism#Contrasted_with_anti-Semitism, which you may not have read? This has been discussed above as well. -- Kendrick7talk 07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section seems to verify why the template is needed. There are enough views which view the topic as antisemitic, and there is enough discussion in the section to warrent the template. Yahel Guhan 06:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this would simply be POV pushing since the relationship between the two is a matter of such contention as the sources attest to. The template is already present in another wikipedia article which accepts the premise equating the two; see religious anti-Semitism. -- Kendrick7talk 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning the Gospels[edit]

The article reads (footnotes omitted):

"A disputed interpretation identifies these books with the Gospels (q.v. Gilyonim): 'The Gospels must be burned for paganism is not as dangerous to the Jewish faith as Jewish Christian sects.'"

I don't have access to the cited texts. However, our article on Gilyonim and this summary of the relevant Talmud page indicate that Rabbi Tarfon said that if a copy of the Gospels were to fall into his hands, he would burn them. That's different from making a blanket statement that "The Gospels must be burned" by Jews in general. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed reference to Mithraism and worship of Sabazios[edit]

I don't think the assertion that Emperor worship posed problems for worshippers of Mithra and Sabazius can be sustained. Mithraism was particularly popular in the Roman army; this would obviously conflict with the religious rites associated with their sworn oaths. Sabazios is regularly cross-identified with both Zeus and Dionysus; hard to see how Emperor worship poses a problem. I suspect that a naive understanding of the emperor's cult underlies this; for instance, the difference between being divus and being a deus. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Removal of Lazare[edit]

Bernard Lazare is not a historian. He is a polemicist. To allow his material to remain in this article would not only be a grievous crime against the historical method, but also a great act of prejudice. It would be like permitting Race Life of the Aryan Peoples to serve as a modern source for European History. NJMauthor (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Bernard Lazare was a Jew so he was certainly not biased against this topic, and his work here was quite seminal. I won't permit you to vandalize it away; I strongly suggest you take your anti-polemical mania elsewhere. -- Kendrick7talk 03:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know he is not biased against this topic. The issue is that he makes things up out of thin air, like many wannabe-historians did during his lifetime. He is not a credible source. NJMauthor (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too focused on Christian history[edit]

The section on Christian anti-Judaism, which appears to take up more than half of the article with history, is ridiculously disproportionate to the section on Islamic anti-Judaism, which takes up a measly paragraph. This Islamic section condemns Judaism on only one count, namely the corruption of the original truth of Islam. There must be prominent people in the history of Islam who, for example, opposed medieval Judaism while the Jews were dhimmis in Muslim-controlled lands. The particular beliefs and ancient practices of Judaism, such as the system of animal sacrifices and the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac with the faith that God would either resurrect his son or prevent him from carrying out the deed, have been strongly denounced as evil and irrational by antireligious moralists. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both rail against the Judeo-Christian conception of God in the Tanakh/Old Testament. This article needs to branch out more and lose Christianity as its central focus. 98.91.67.212 (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANTI-JUDAISM IN HELLENISTIC TIMES RESULTING IN HASMONEAN DYNASTY[edit]

Firstly, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that this article makes no mention of what was happening during Hellenistic times, and the clash of ideological and religious views between Greeks and Hellenized-Jews against strictly Jews, which resulted in the first religious and ideological (guerrilla) war in history between the Seleucid Greeks and the Jews in the hills of Judea, celebrated by Jews to this day as the Chanuka. This was NOT just simply a war between Greeks and Jews, but also a CIVIL war between Jews and Hellenized Jews as well. Much of this resulted from the persecution of Jewish beliefs and not Jews by Seleukid king the IV, and anyone who practiced circumcision (not only Jews practiced it!) would face penalty of death (circumcision being unthinkable for Greeks), and the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Greeks who changed into a temple for Zeus (not because it was personal against the Jews, but because it was part of the contemporaneous globalisation and religious and ideological homogenisation that was taking place in hellenistic times), among other things. The Jews likewise retaliated or initiated similar acts of clashing by desecrating temples and Greek statues, while there are various mentions of Hellenised Jews going against Jews-per-se sacrificing pigs in public just to make a point, which resulted in further tension that divided people not ethnically but ideologically, and this makes the term "anti-judaism" not only ridiculous, but also inapplicable, for HOW could the Jews themselves be labeled as anti-judaic when such instances like the preamble of the tension that lead to the Hasmonean Dynasty were deeply rooted even amongst Jews themselves, and it is much a case of civil war as much as it is a case of war between SOME jews and Seleukid Greeks/hellenised Jews??

Likewise, there are numerous sources concerning Ptolemaic Alexandria in papyri of Egyptian court procedures from Oxyrinchus, for instance, which demonstrate a sentiment of inferiority on the part of Jews and of superiority on the part of Greeks, which clearly demonstrates the mounting pressure from the Greeks and oppression felt by the Jews, which culminated to the creation of the briefly-lived Hasmonean kingdom. The Greeks would arbitrarily take native Egyptian land and allot it to Greeks of higher status, while Jews had the worse lot of most cultures in Alexandria, being a minority. The inclusion of this section i propose, concerning the preamble to the Hasmonean Dynasty and ideological, religious and cultural tension in Ptolemaic and Seleukid areas with reference to Jewish peoples (but not exclusive to Jews only), ought to go before the section of "Anti-Judaism in pre-christian, Roman times". These issues are entirely pertinent to the subject discussed here as "anti-judaism", and should be mentioned in the article, but of which, the title is utterly unacceptable and stems from our modern perceptions, and does not reflect actual circumstances, at least in pre-christian times.

Secondly, on this matter of the article's title, I would suggest, in order to at long last make the study of this subject academic, to abstain from using severely emotionally-tainted titles such as "anti-judaism" or "ancient anti-semitism", as this issue, especially in antiquity, was never one of being "against the Jews" specifically or personally, but a matter of clashing ideologies between two cultures that had resulted from the hellenistic melting pot of cultures, and when we are reducing it to a modern perception of "anti-judaism" we are simply ludicrously generalizing, with political ramifications. There was NO SUCH THING as "anti-judaism" in antiquity, in the way is is defined today, through our modern construction of the term and the cultural and ideological weight it carries largely in due result from the upshot of WWII. At least this much MUST be pointed out to the reader in the article, so that there is caution not to associate a continuity of there being a general trend of oppression and tribulation against the Jews from antiquity to present: the viewpoints arising from such an interpretation are misleading, to say the least.

The whole issue of using such titles has become a panacea of sorts. Does one ever use the title "anti-hellenism" to connote an ideological, religious and/or political clash between Greeks and Persians, for instance? Applying such labels merely paints the whole subject a certain color for the scholar a priori, making it taboo to touch upon certain issues from a varying perspective, and it is tiring and infuriating to say the least. But of course, anyone who says such things would be labeled an "anti-semetic", wouldn't they? Anyway, That's my second suggestion: the title should be changed LIKE EVERY OTHER MAJOR HISTORICAL EVENT in this encyclopaeda, to reflect historic periods of ideological and religious clashes between judaism and other cultures or religions (christian, pagan, etc), if we ever want to be academically and historically concerned about any study of this subject and make some progress besides avoiding certain emendations in fear of offending, hence every scholar has to walk on egg-shells.

So, my suggestion, which I leave to the veterans of Wikipedia to decide is:

1.include details of the hellenistic Seleukid ideological-religious clash which resulted to the Jewish Hasmonean Dynasty. 2. change the title of this article to something more scholarly, which reflects the incidence of religious and ideological clashes throughout history between Jews and other cultures, namely Greeks, Romans, and Christians, instead of putting forth a modern-perceived lens of viewing the matter reflected in the title of the article. A simple read of the Jewish encyclopedia online will point in a similar direction. Perhaps "HEBRAIOPHOBIA" needs to be coined here, which does not carry all the political weight of today, and redirect any search on "anti-judaism" there. Any reference to "Anti-anyculture/people" seems to stir problems that hinder academic effort, as it is merely a matter of perspective: was the war that lead to the Hasmonean Dynasty due to "anti-judaism" on the part of Seleukid Greeks, or "anti-hellenism" on the part of Jews, or both? Why choose the latter and not the former? Point made. Should the historiographer choose either of the two terms, he has immediately preambled pre-conceptually the reader in either direction for interpreting the facts. We must abstain from this tradition in tainting facts on either side, in the name of clarity of historiography and scholarship. Otherwise let us make an article called anti-hellinism and begin mentioning the pillaging of any Greek temple by the Christians, and try to connect that with the Ottoman empire's anti-greekism. That's how insane what we are doing here is by even merely inferring that anti-semitism and anti-judaism are connected. These terms have NO historical basis. And for the sake of castration, i have to point out: I AM NOT A JEW HATER. MY gf is jewish, and I am Greek. I just dread the misleading repercussions of such terminology and the heat that emanates from their use, which should be avoided at all costs for the sake of academic scholarship.

____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thoughts of David Nirenberg[edit]

I've removed the following information from the lead, as I can't make heads or tails of it:

According to David Nirenberg, anti-Judaism extends far beyond Judaism or interactions with Jews, bearing only a passing relationship with actual Judaism. It is arguably a form of thought that is one of the corner-stones of the edifice of the Western tradition itself, in which the focus of enmity lies as much with "Judaizing non-Jews" as with Jews themselves.<ref>[[David Nirenberg]], [http://books.google.com/books?id=Dy1tmtw9aA0C&printsec=frontcover ''Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition,'' ] 2013.</ref><ref>[[Michael Walzer]], [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/20/imaginary-jews/ ''Imaginary Jews,''] in [[New York Review of Books]] March 20, 2014 pp.31-33, p.31</ref><ref>[[Adam Kirsch]], [http://tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/123971/a-world-without-jews ''A World Without Jews,''] [[Tablet (magazine)|Tablet]] 13 February 2013.</ref>

If there's a point in there somewhere, I'm not sure what it is. It looks like word salad to me. -- Kendrick7talk 03:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nirenberg is writing about how historically (ignoring the last 50 or so years of "Judeo-Christian" revisionism), Westerners (in which he includes Muslims as well as the ancient Egyptians) have defined their own identities by contrast with Jews. Jews are everything Westerners are not; Jews are every undesired quality while Westerners are every desired quality, and any instance of Westerners behaving badly is perceived as Jewish (e.g. "pharisaism", etc.)
I'm not surprised Tablet did a bad job summarizing this, but in effect Nirenberg's book discusses how Jews have formed the Constitutive Other for Western civilization, and goes through various examples throughout history. The implication is also that anti-Judaism has little, if anything, to do with Jews, and that if we had not existed, the West would simply have used a different scapegoat. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kendrick7 the Nirenberg summary from Tablet was confusing, but David Nirenberg is mainstream authority on this. פינצטערניש has summarized this pretty well, except without the implication that.. which may be analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Langsmuir's definition is somewhere between the pathological hatred as a constitutive other that Nirenberg outlines, and Criticism of Judaism as a valid form of culture criticism as its outlined in that article. I would like to move the Langsmuir definition to that article, and restore Nirenberg's definition here, albeit outlined better. Kind regardsJaredscribe (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jaredscribe, thanks for pinging me. I don't know if I quite trust a scholar who claims that ancient Egyptians defined themselves by their opposition to Judaism, since I've never seen anyone put forth any historical evidence to support such a claim, and I'd be curious to see what Nirenberg relies on. I may not be up with the latest archeology, but this seems like a minority POV. Otherwise, Langmuir's definition keeps this article inline with other anti-religion articles without going overboard with vanity, paranoia, or claims of pathology, and provides a solid foundation to outline known historical events. It's not as if Wikipedia is lacking articles which claim there has been a widespread pathological hatred of Jews throughout all of history; for example, the article religious antisemitism in particular is probably more in line with Nirenberg's thesis. -- Kendrick7talk 16:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Passover Statement[edit]

I have removed this statement:

"The Council of Nicea ended Passover celebrations for Christians."

The first council of Nicea had nothing to do with "ending Passover celebrations." This is part of the whole bogus Constantine/Catholic church corruption/pagan practices narrative. I realize this is promoted in a lot of different areas, but it is not true. Read the actual documents from the Council yourself and you will see it.

Some Christians were still joining Jews in the celebration of their festivals at the time of John Chrysostom a half a century later because he was raging about it in his Eight Homilies Against the Jews. The Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1438-1445 banned Christians from participating Jewish observances.

The Council of Nicea did was set a common date for the celebration of the Paschal Sunday, Resurrection Sunday, which was the day of First Harvest during the Passover celebration. The issue was the churches were having to go to the local synagogue to find out when Passover was that year. This ended up in the Christian celebration of the resurrection being celebrated on different dates in different areas.

All the Council of Nicea did was eliminate the dependence on the date of the Jewish observation of Passover, which at the time, was still going by lunar observation. The Jews themselves moved to a set calendar during the time of Maimonides. The Christian Church chose to calculate the date according to the vernal equinox (which was also the same method used by the Essenes during the time of Christ.)

The question was how to calculate the 15th of Nisan. Even the Quartodeciman controversy wasn't so much about Passover itself as it was on which to observe, Jesus's death or his resurrection. The day he died, Nisan 14, was the date the Passover lamb was killed. Passover officially began on Nissan 15 with the Feast of Unleavened bread.

It's very odd to me that this page relies so much on one single book written in 1903.

Cma01 (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)cma01[reply]

Lede sentence "as opposed to antisemitism" seems wrong[edit]

That is clearly not what Merriam Webster says hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. It probably should be deleted. -- Avi (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Avraham:, I've attempted to clean up the lede. -- Kendrick7talk 18:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your clean up gave the minority opinion full weight; I've readjusted the prose. The citation supports what is now there, in my opinion, although we can probably find more if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You used WP:PEACOCK wording to give undue voice to a minority view. I've cleaned this up again. -- Kendrick7talk 04:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Kendrick, it is not WP:PEACOCK wording. Most sources do not make any differentiation between antijudaism and antisemitism. It is a minority, perhaps WP:FRINGE, who do. Your language gives more weight to the fringe than the majority meaning, misrepresenting the sources and common usage. -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kendrick7:I've asked for consideration and input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion Also, please see discussion at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_34#Pov issue : is anti-Judaism a form of antisemitism ? where I believe consensus is the way I understand, that the predominant usage is that the terms are the same (interchangeable) and that it is a minority opinion that makes the distinction, which is why the lede should reflect that. -- Avi (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any distinction between the two terms. If someone were to be against Judaism and just want to criticize it, that wouldn't be anti-judaism. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Avi lies. We were both discussing there and there was no consensus at all between us. He just made his own interpretation of some sources rejecting those that didn't fit his interpretation instead of trying to develop the nuances between these two terms and the evolution of their meaning among the ages. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, Wikipedia keeps records of very edit and every version. The reader can follow the discussions and see if any falshoods were made, and if so, by whom. -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Don't forget each time you claim something to argue why you say so. You mispresented my point of view here above. I am certainly the best person to commment on the fact that you would have done so or not. PingKendrick7: do you want to go on this discussion? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bot. Good work. -- Kendrick7talk 04:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic anti-Judaism[edit]

Section on Islamic anti-Judaism is currently problematic due to a single source being used (Encyclopedia of Islam) and presented as a standard and universally accepted interpretation of Quranic scripture. The two refs provided are totally vague to begin with, which is bad enough considering the sensitivity of this article and its subject matter, but more so, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest this interpretation is universally accepted, let alone accepted by both Sunni and Shia theologians. Further, where is the evidence this interpretation is legitimately to be considered as "anti-Judaism"? The source used does not identify this view as such. At best, its original research unless clarified and backed by reliable sources. Laval (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Judaism as a synonym for antisemitism[edit]

I'm making this a separate section since it's not related to the rest of Laval's comment above about Islamic anti-Judaism. The current wording of the sentence in the lead isn't accurate. It says, "Since the 12th or 13th century,[2] it has been considered a synonym for antisemitism..." The wording later on the body of the article is fine, so I don't think it's OR. It just seems like someone was trying to be concise here, but "synonym" implies that both of these terms existed in the 12th and 13th century, which isn't accurate according to the sources at Antisemitism. One of the sources cited for that statement explains it well, "Some people have written and spoken about anti-Semitism in antiquity, but the term in that context is misleading. We do indeed find texts in the ancient world attacking and denouncing Jews, sometimes quite viciously, but we also find nasty remarks about Syrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and the rest. There is no great difference between the anti-Jewish remarks and the ethnic and religious prejudices expressed against other peoples." I can't access Langmuir's book online, but in 1994, Roberty Stacey wrote a response in Religious Studies Review (Volume 20, Issue 2, p. 95) to Langmuir's books History, Religion, and Antisemitism and Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, and said, "Langmuir has explored the historical emergence of antisemitism during the European middle ages in a series of articles... Like most scholars writing in the wake of the Holocaust, Langmuir regards antisemitism as historically linked to religion in western European experience..." So the statement in the lead isn't OR. It just needs to be re-worded. Is this a better way to say it?

Historians have linked anti-Judaism to antisemitism dating back to the middle ages.

Thoughts? PermStrump(talk) 23:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as I confirm that claiming aniti-Judaism = antisemitism is pov pushing as proven by the sources.
This is a minority view that is defneded for political reasons.
Pluto2012 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact that the words have not been synonymous since 12th or 13th century. Beyond that, we have to go with the sources and it does not appear to be a minority view. PermStrump(talk) 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Permstrump,
I agree with last sentence but I think it is in contradiction with your proposal.
If "[i]t's a fact that the words have not been synonymous [for 800 years]" and if "it does not appear to be a minority view", then we should make it clear and explain what are the differences instead of writing that historians have linked both notions.
I started adding material in the article about this issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying they weren't "synonymous" because the word antisemitism didn't exist back then, but that the sentiment is the same. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying. PermStrump(talk) 06:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
In a few sentences:
  • The word "antisemitism" didn't exist before the XIXth, indeed.
  • Scholars quarrel on the influence of "anti-Judaism" on "anti-Semitism" (some see this absolute ; others relevant and some never mentionned this) but none of them say they are "synonymous". It is wp:or.
  • Some scholars underline that "anti-Judaism" in numerous aspects was a form a "anti-Semitism". Others underline that never "anti-Judaism" asked for the "extermination of the Jewish people", something "anti-Semitism" lead to with the Holocaust. Others say that "anti-Judaism" is only a [bad] religious concept.
That's what the article should clarify instead of focusing on the political and modern statement that "anti-Judaism is anti-Semitism"; a reaction that scholoars should attribute to the Masada complex. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Favret-Saada source verification[edit]

I have not been able to verify the Jeanne Favret-Saada source in Pluto2012's new additions to this article. The link shows an article that says it's an excerpt from Favret-Saada's Le Judaisme et ses Juifs translated by Eléonore Rimbault, but I can't find mention in any reliable source of this English excerpt, the French version, or the HAU Journal of Ethnographic Theory. Favret-Saada wrote something called Le Christianisme et ses juifs : 1800-2000, in 2004, but I don't see anywhere reliable and independent of the HAU journal that says she wrote Le Judaisme et ses Juifs in 2014. PermStrump(talk) 03:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2014 article published in English in the Journal of Ethnographic Theory by Favret. It seems clear that this article/draft was written in French by Favret -based on excerpts of her book Le Judaisme et ses Juifs (2004)- and translated by Eleonore Rimbault for her. I assume she doesn't feel at ease with English.
The link is the HAU website. What is your point ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like a book by that name exists. PermStrump(talk) 03:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right! The title is not "Le Judaisme et ses Juifs" but is "Le Christianisme et ses Juifs", which is quite logital. That's just a typo mistake in the title of the article in HAU.
Pluto2012 (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then they got the year wrong too. PermStrump(talk) 04:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The year is good.
The book was published in 2004.
The article based on the book in 2014.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of anti-Judaism[edit]

The definition given in the lead of the article come from Langmuir:

Anti-Judaism has been called "a total or partial opposition to Judaism — and to Jews as adherents of it — by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior."[1]

This definition is pov-ed and in more of this Langmuir's mind is wrongly presented: 1. Langmuir is a medievalist and studies the Christian anti-Judaism (dating back the Middle Ages) and not something that may be considered as modern. The definition doesn't state so. 2. Even in his area (Middle Ages), Langmuir's ideas are not totally followed and therefore we could not use his definitions to define the concept (even if here Langmuir's mind is mispresented.)

Quite obviously, the definition is pov-ed if we talk about modern times. Why would the Judaic beliefs be genuine ? And why would people who oppose to them consider these practice as inferiors ? They may just consider these as useless.

As a consequence, and more globally, we should define what we want the article to talk about. Is this about the 'historical anti-Judaim' (in which case, Langmuir is relevant) or is this about 'modern or any-time anti-Judaism', in which case the definition is wrong. Also, what are the links and differences with criticism of Judaism that have to be discussed here ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Pluto2012:. Yes, this article is meant to take an historical and theological view on the topic; compare anti-Catholicism, anti-Protestantism, etc. I haven't lately read criticism of Judaism but I presume that fills the goal of a more modern and atheistic take. -- Kendrick7talk 02:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Islamic Section[edit]

I am planning to add to the Islamic section with information from multiple scholarly articles written by Rabbi Cohen and Rabbi Stillman. This edit will contain details of anti-Judaism from the Late Middle Ages for example a limit placed on the degree of maintenance on synagogues described by Stillman as a provision of the Pact of Umar. I am inexperienced in editing articles, so if anyone wants to comment on these changes please post here or on the talk section of my page. Corte128 (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, @Corte128:. This section has deserved expansion for quite a while. Go forth and be WP:BOLD and I will try to keep an eye out. -- Kendrick7talk 02:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Corte128:. It's good to develop the article but take care that rabbis (potential victims) are not neutral for this matter, so you should mention each time "according to...". By the way, I don't know them but I expect both these rabbis to be reknown and have at least univerisity diplomas, else it is useless and other sources must be found. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable to see who these Rabbis are, of course, but an accepted Rabbinical authority is no less "useless" than an Imam with a degree or ordination from a madrassah or an ordained priest with a theological degree. No one HAS to have a degree from a non-religious institution necessarily. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The different concepts of Anti-Judaism[edit]

It seems that Anti-Judaism has several different meanings in actual usage:

I don't know what reliable sources have to say about each of these different definitions but from a strictly logical perspective one can be opposed the Judaism as a religious ideology with being against Jews a people. Obviously there is a difference between merely expressing opposition to Judaism on religious or atheist/agnostic grounds as apposed to actively trying oppress Judaism and take away practicing Jews religious freedom. The article should discuss what appears to be the fact that the term "Anti-Judaism" is often used in literal sense, much like anti-Semitism doesn't mean literally "against semites". If we are going to say in the article that Anti-Judaism is not the same as scholarly criticism of Judaism, then we should make that clear in the article itself. I propose a separate section at the top desiccating in general the term "anti-Judaism" and it's various meanings in actual usage over time, and any controversy over how we define the term (i.e. Does Anti-Judaism = anti-semitism?) in brief. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Part of the overlap-with-anti-semitism problem was that the Bible itself described the Jews as "chosen people", or a chosen race, when now we know that they are largely similar genetically to other middle eastern groups. Anti-Judaism should perhaps be described as views held by some members of other religions? The trend now is not to take any one religion as absolute truth.78.16.4.13 (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book of Exodus, chapter 19, calls them the "chosen people", but only on condition of accepting the covenant. They are NOT chosen because of their DNA, and the prophets continually remind the Israelites of later generations that they are NOT 'genetically' stronger, mightier, or better than the other nations, but on the contrary smaller and weaker. Anyone can convert into the faith, and anyone born into it can voluntarily leave or be "cut off". The Hebrew bible does not deny physicality and ancestral identity, nor does it essentialize it. Christianity tends to the former, and Racialists and anti-semites tend to the latter, and both tend toward Antijudaism. But this covenantal definition of "Jewish peoplehood" is the anthropology of the hebrew bible, and Judaism of today elaborates on it. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Perennial question: Antijudaism and Antisemitism, whats the difference?

See also: Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_34 § Pov_issue_:_is_anti-Judaism_a_form_of_antisemitism_?

See also: Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_34 § Difference_between_antisemitism_and_anti-Judaism_-_other_definition

See also: Antisemitism_in_Christianity

as an article is not bad, but should renamed or merged into Anti-Judaism_in_early_Christianity, or into this one, IMHO, or we are having a content fork.

See also: Antisemitism in Islam

should probably be renamed Antijudaism in Islam, IMHO.

Consensus of scholars is that racial antisemitism emerged in the 1800's as a distinct ideology, but racist jew-hate also was part of the Spanish Inquisition. Nirenberg holds that anti-jewish theologies of supersession were translated into the discourse of "Critical reason" in the enlightenment, and has mapped this out persuasively from Kant to Hegel and beyond. This hasn't been dealt with in the other articles, so I've added a section header for it here. Please expand.

Thank you for accepting my edits to the lede so far. My vision for this article is to use WP:Summary style and WP:Transclusion for the child articles, and to include notable meta-analysis from scholars of the trans-generational historic pattern. Lets ask questions and debate terminology, definitions, and distinctions on this discussion thread. Most of the discussion up till now has been without the benefit of David Nirenberg's comprehensive and systematic 2013 treatment of the subject, which we can hope will settle a few tedious debates and improve the quality of our discussion. Lets all renew a commitment to WP:Civility, and believe that the future can be better than the past. Thank you all for helping to improve Wikipedia!Jaredscribe (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge, redefine, and deprecate RFC Talk:Religious antisemitism § Split this article into "Jew-hate in christianity", "Jew-hate in Islam", and "Anti-Judaism" Jaredscribe (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nirenbergian Analysis: The Western Tradition

For the scholarly criticism of Judaism, see Criticism of Judaism. For racial hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews, see Antisemitism.

Main article: David_Nirenberg § Anti-Judaism:_The_Western_Tradition

Please read the introduction, the epilogue, and at least two chapters of (Nirenberg 2013) prior to raising adverse questions or challenges in this discussion thread. Please lets have questions preliminary discussion immediately above if you haven't done the reading yet. Also, read the antisemitism article, please, which is not bad. I hope that the definitions, distinctions, and historical analysis given by him and his colleagues post-2013 will significantly improve our debates and discussions from what was had in the previous conversations archived above. We should WP:assume good faith, but lets all please be mindful of the limitations of our knowledge, and remember that WP:Competence is required. Editors making WP:BOLD contributions should make a commitment to gaining and demonstrating the necessary subject matter competence to handle this difficult subject.

=Definition of AntiJudaism for the Lede

The lede currently has a definition of "AntiJudaism" by Gavin Langmuir from 1971. Here is an alternative I composed from a composite of sources cited in the article below:

Antijudaism is a prominent feature of political theology that types Judaism, Jews, and people suspected of having Jewish traits, as bad or evil and defines them as the enemy.

This what I think is the basic proposition of the article, that should be included as its lede sentence. Thank you all for helping improve the EncyclopediaJaredscribe (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is anticasinoism also generalizationally antijudaist?[edit]

Just a question by me if if one is being anti casinos if one is then also antijudaist or better to say generalizationally antijudaist then?

I know that Christians in general (had many nonradicals at my school, they all oppose Casinos, gambling and the lotteries also) and even many Muslim believers are antigambling as a whole!

Reasons mentioned by Christians: gambling is in relationship to freemasonry, satanist occultism, the occult in general and judaism and even zionism, zionist right-wing extremism (mainly banking Jews) and even the n**i regime plays a role in them hating it.

Reasons mentioned by Muslims: gambling is in relationship to freemasonry, Jews and Rotary Clubs and therefore as much hate-preached. Is gaming also a religious belief system all by itself? What also is the name of the GOD in the 777 Slot machines also? --2001:16B8:5792:C000:5DA9:BEE9:B63C:C94E (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about Casinos that make them essentially "Jewish", other than the mere fact that muslims and many christians reject them both? Muslims also don't eat pork and most christians don't eat dogs. By your logic, it seems to follow that pigs and dogs are essentially "Jewish", in some mysterious way, even though Jews also abstain from both. Is that what you think? If you would clarify the grounds for your equation of the two, then I could answer your question as to whether the peculiar form of "anti-casinoism" proposed here is also a form of "anti-judaism". Jaredscribe (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification on a section[edit]

"Both the Christian doctrine of supersessionism and the Islamic doctrine of tahrif exemplify the formation of religious identity by appropriating and adapting Jewish texts while they define Judaism as a constitutive other and an essential enemy."

In what way is it appropriation? Christian communities developed alongside Jewish ones with a similar but different tradition. I tried editing this multiple times but it continued to be reinstated with no explanation. 2601:5CE:4380:3A0:4CC9:F828:A6F:CBEF (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it’s sourced. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supersessionism and tahrir are sourced, but the 'exemplify the formation of religious identity by appropriating and adapting Jewish texts while they define Judaism as a constitutive other and an essential enemy' doesn't, though it sounds as though it is closely paraphrasing if not quoting some original (Nirenstein?)
What was appropriated, which Jewish texts, is not clear. True, a substantial number of early Christians came from a Jewish background, so 'appropriation' is odd: they redeveloped part of the tradition they came from. There were several 'constitutive' others, not only Jews but pagans, heretics and, from the 8th century onwards Muslims, for Christians. The 'constitutive' other in Islam is the 'kafir' or 'mushrik'. 'Essential enemies'? (nonetheless for whom protective laws, canonic and in the Sharia, existed) A lot of the 'constitutive' other thinking, for that, comes out of the Tanakh and rabbinical traditions regarding non-Jews. In any case, the first millenium should not be read in terms the 20th century (1939-45), as those great historians Cecil Roth and Salo Wittmayer Baron maintained, with the whole of history at their fingertips, in the aftermath of WW2.Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In short I think the second part's source should be clearly identified.Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing and encapsulating Nirenberg's thesis, can be found in his preface or conclusion. I'll try to get a few exact quotes and put them in a separate section. Christianity for example, defines itself as the "spiritual Israel", the heirs of the promises and prohecies given to Israel, which is appropriation. Jews became a symbol of "the flesh" / "the world", "the sinful nature". Jaredscribe (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 2023 Lede Re-write[edit]

In the meantime since I was here, someone added a set of three definitions from Douglas O'Hare (presumably christian POV), the article was in a German journal I couldn't read. Rather than disputing it, I left it. I also added explicit attributions to the Langmuir definition, and to my summary of Nirenberg mentioned above, to take it out of wiki-voice and address any concerns about neutrality. Since we don't have any consensus on a definition of what is proving to be a very WP:Broad concept article, its best to let them all stand and try to encapsulate in the lede sentence(s) something that they all have in common. I've endeavored to do so with this WP:Bold addition:

Anti-Judaism describes a range of historic and current ideologies based on total or partial opposition to Judaism, on denial or abrogation of the Sinai covenant, and replacement of Jewish people by another religion or ideology held to have superceded them as "light to the nations" and as God's covenanted people. There have been christian, islamic, and enlightenment rationalist variations on this theme, according to Nirenberg.

Agreements, disagreements? What do Langmuir, O'Hare, and others have to say in response to this, if anything? Vatican II started to walk back this doctrine in Nostra Aetate, which could be mentioned later, but it had been orthodox catholocism since the third century or before, and it remains the doctrine of nearly all mainline and evangelical churches today. An Islamic or post-Islamic source would be helpful in clarifying the nature of the enmity there.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural apropriation are ylu kiddinh[edit]

The original christians were jews and the current jews are as jewish as christians they are rabbinic jews who emerged after christianity 93.106.8.237 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories