Anti semitisim in the early church

[latin_rite]

Was there a level of anti semitism in the early church?

 

[Abenadar]

Are you talkin’ like, St. Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles kind of “anti-semitism”, or something else? I think in the early Church the greater concern for Christians was the anti-Christian world all around them.

 

[Holly3278]

If you Google “anti-semitism and the early Church” you will find a number of relevant links. I won’t link you to those though because they seem to be either anti-early Church, anti-Church in general, or anti-early Church fathers.

 

[latin_rite]

Good point abenadar. Holly thats why i ended up asking the question here. I think the first two pages were a little one sided against the church.

 

[yinekka]

When the apostles started to preach the Good News they were flogged by the Jews and driven out of the synagogues. St Stephen the proto martyr was stoned to death by the Jews. St Paul speaks of being flogged a number of times. Sounds more like anti Christianity to me than anti semitism. Christianity was persecuted for 300 years; they were more concerned with living for another day being anti Jewish. If they spoke of the truth of Christianity that wouldn’t make them antisemitic.

 

[chosen_people]

Well to get you started (a partial list) and only up to the end of the fourth century

St. Hippolytus

Origen

St. Hillary

St. John Chrysostom

St. Gregory

St. Augustine

St. Ambrose

Pope Valentine III

The church synod of Elvira

Council of Nicea

 

[MIKE46]

Was there a level of anti semitism in the early church?

The early Church saw itself as the fulfillment of Judaism, the natural and necessary progression of that faith. The Messiah had come and had fulfilled the covenant. That was it. The early Church saw itself as the one true faith. Period. And they were all Jews, every last one of them.

The earliest debates in the Church involved may things but one of the most impostant was the discussion whether or not non Jews could even be admitted to the faith without first becoming Jewish. That debate was settled at the Council in Jerusalem when it was decided that non Jews, Gentiles etc, could become Christian converting to that faith.

So the early Church viewed Jews who did not believe in Christ as the Messiah, as having abandoned their faith and having generally thrown away their chance at salvation.

There was also a desire that the early Church be accepted as the true Jewish faith by the authorities, the Romans. The Romans accepted Judaism as a valid faith due to its antiquity and did not require Jews to burn incense to or worship the Roman Gods in any way. And at first, the Romans viewed Christianty as merely a sect within Judaism. However, when they saw the way that the Jewish authorities treated the early Christians and heard the denouncement of the Jews by the early Christians they came to see the Church as something new, and dangerous to the stability of the Empire…

Christianty, being mono-theistic, and aggressively evangelizing, converted many to their belief system… This posed problems for the Romans, who historically had no problems with different religions in their empire. That was because the early Church refused to accept the validity of other faiths and in fact denounced them. They refused to show respect to the Roman Gods or any other Gods. Often violently. The Romans saw this as being subversive in the extreme and dangerous to the stability of the Empire. The early Christians were not persecuted because they were were Christians, but because they were exclusively Christian.

The early Church viewed Jews who did not believe in Christ as the Messiah as not being true Jews at all. In fact, it became a generally accepted belief that the Jews had willingly participated in the slaughter of Jesus were thus guilty of deicide. Recall the verse in Matthew 27:25 where the Jewish crowd say in unison that Jesus’ blood was upon them and their children. The early Church took that view seriously and over the years it solidified in a distict anti Jewish sentiment in the Church and in Christianity as a whole.

I’m not saying that it was right or wrong, but it is a fair statement to say that the early Church was definitely anti-Jewish to a great degree and that feeling intensified over the centuries…

 

[MIKE46]

The early Church saw itself as the fulfillment of Judaism, the natural and necessary progression of that faith. The Messiah had come and had fulfilled the covenant. That was it. The early Church saw itself as the one true faith. Period. And they were all Jews, every last one of them.

The earliest debates in the Church involved may things but one of the most impostant was the discussion whether or not non Jews could even be admitted to the faith without first becoming Jewish. That debate was settled at the Council in Jerusalem when it was decided that non Jews, Gentiles etc, could become Christian converting to that faith.

So the early Church viewed Jews who did not believe in Christ as the Messiah, as having abandoned their faith and having generally thrown away their chance at salvation.

There was also a desire that the early Church be accepted as the true Jewish faith by the authorities, the Romans. The Romans accepted Judaism as a valid faith due to its antiquity and did not require Jews to burn incense to or worship the Roman Gods in any way. And at first, the Romans viewed Christianty as merely a sect within Judaism. However, when they saw the way that the Jewish authorities treated the early Christians and heard the denouncement of the Jews by the early Christians they came to see the Church as something new, and dangerous to the stability of the Empire…

Christianty, being mono-theistic, and aggressively evangelizing, converted many to their belief system… This posed problems for the Romans, who historically had no problems with different religions in their empire. That was because the early Church refused to accept the validity of other faiths and in fact denounced them. They refused to show respect to the Roman Gods or any other Gods. Often violently. The Romans saw this as being subversive in the extreme and dangerous to the stability of the Empire. The early Christians were not persecuted because they were were Christians, but because they were exclusively Christian.

The early Church viewed Jews who did not believe in Christ as the Messiah as not being true Jews at all. In fact, it became a generally accepted belief that the Jews had willingly participated in the slaughter of Jesus were thus guilty of deicide. Recall the verse in Matthew 27:25 where the Jewish crowd say in unison that Jesus’ blood was upon them and their children. The early Church took that view seriously and over the years it solidified in a distict anti Jewish sentiment in the Church and in Christianity as a whole.

I’m not saying that it was right or wrong, but it is a fair statement to say that the early Church was definitely anti-Jewish to a great degree and that feeling intensified over the centuries…

In the above post I inadvertantly misworded a sentence. The last sentence should read:

That debate was settled at the Council in Jerusalem when it was decided that non Jews, Gentiles etc, could become Christian without first converting to Judaism.

Also I wanted to point out that the anti Judaism felt by the early Church was directed more towards the Jewish faith itself and its leaders and not necessarily towards all Jews individually.

 

[Robbinson]

Well to get you started (a partial list) and only up to the end of the fourth century

St. Hippolytus

Origen

St. Hillary

St. John Chrysostom

St. Gregory

St. Augustine

St. Ambrose

Pope Valentine III

The church synod of Elvira

Council of Nicea

Agreed, sadly - there is a significant history of antisemitism among early Church fathers and others acting “in the name of” the Church. This was an obstacle, for a while, to my journey to the Church - although ultimatley, I recognized that there is a distinction between personal views of the early Church Fathers (whether informed, uninformed, well intended, or not) and the doctrines of the Church. Vatican II is a tremendous improvement in clarifying the official Church position on the relationship between Christians and Jews.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[NeelyAnn]

Agreed, sadly - there is a significant history of antisemitism among early Church fathers and others acting “in the name of” the Church. This was an obstacle, for a while, to my journey to the Church - although ultimatley, I recognized that there is a distinction between personal views of the early Church Fathers (whether informed, uninformed, well intended, or not) and the doctrines of the Church. Vatican II is a tremendous improvement in clarifying the official Church position on the relationship between Christians and Jews.

Blessings,

Brian

Brian,

This is absolutely false. You have basically just accused Doctors’ of the Church and declared Saints of sin. A Doctor of the Church is someone that is recognized as having been of particular importance, particularly regarding their additions to theological or doctrinal matters. The title of Doctor of the Church is given to a saint from whose writings the whole Church is held to have derived great advantage and to whom “eminent learning” and “great sanctity” have been attributed by a proclamation of a pope. Anti-semitism is the hatred of people of Jewish descent. To have a hatred such as that for anyone would be sinful and would keep one from being a Saint. In addition, the Church would not have promoted and allowed the teachings and writings of these Doctors’ and Saints to be read and promoted if they considered them to be anti-semitic in anyway.

The early Church Fathers were not anti-semitic. That is not what they promoted at all.

If you believe that they were anti-semitic, then you believe the Church erred when they infallibly declared them to be Saints and Doctors’ of the Church.

It is due to politically correct language, evasive terminology with ever changing meanings, lack of knowledge of true history, and poor logic skills that many are mislead into believing this. Due to these things, anti-semitism has come to mean anyone who disagrees with the Jews, anyone who offends the Jews, and anyone who believes that the Jews are not sinless and faultless. Which is absolutely ridiculous.If those rules are to apply for the Jews, then all fairness we must apply them to everyone else.

 

[Robbinson]

Brian,

This is absolutely false. You have basically just accused Doctors’ of the Church and declared Saints of sin. A Doctor of the Church is someone that is recognized as having been of particular importance, particularly regarding their additions to theological or doctrinal matters. The title of Doctor of the Church is given to a saint from whose writings the whole Church is held to have derived great advantage and to whom “eminent learning” and “great sanctity” have been attributed by a proclamation of a pope. Anti-semitism is the hatred of people of Jewish descent. To have a hatred such as that for anyone would be sinful and would keep one from being a Saint. In addition, the Church would not have promoted and allowed the teachings and writings of these Doctors’ and Saints to be read and promoted if they considered them to be anti-semitic in anyway.

The early Church Fathers were not anti-semitic. That is not what they promoted at all.

If you believe that they were anti-semitic, then you believe the Church erred when they infallibly declared them to be Saints and Doctors’ of the Church.

It is due to politically correct language, evasive terminology with ever changing meanings, lack of knowledge of true history, and poor logic skills that many are mislead into believing this. Due to these things, anti-semitism has come to mean anyone who disagrees with the Jews, anyone who offends the Jews, and anyone who believes that the Jews are not sinless and faultless. Which is absolutely ridiculous.If those rules are to apply for the Jews, then all fairness we must apply them to everyone else.

Hi NeelyAnn - your reply caught me a little off guard, to be honest as your post seemed to almost be “attacking me” for merely acknowledging a troubled Church history in the area of antisemetism and as early Church fathers are/were not infallible and certainly capable of committing sin. The fact that they are cannonized “Saints” does not mean they were sinless in life - though clearly I agree these were sincere Catholics who did tremendously good things for the Church and were/are with Christ in heaven helping us now and deserving of our veneration.

I agree with you that the term antisemitism can be misused and misdirected - but the facts are that there was significant antisemtic writings by early Church Fathers.

I was careful in my post (to which you responded) to distinguish between statements of individiuals and official Church doctrine. Below are just a few unfortunate quotes - you can decide for yourself whehter you find them “antisemetic” applying your criteria.

Below are just a few of many similar quotes of early Church fathers towards the Jews:

"The synagogue is worse than a brothel . . it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts. … the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults . . the refuge of brigands and debauchees, and the cavern of devils. [It is] a criminal assembly of Jews . . . a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ. . a house worse than a drinking shop . . a den of theieves; a house of ill fame, a dweling in iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and abys of perdition. . . . As for me, I hate the synagogue. . . I hate the Jews for the same reason. " (St. John Chrysostom - Quoted in Malcolm Hay, the Roots of Christian AntiSemitism)

“The Jews, against whom the blood of Jesus Christ calls out, although they ought not be killed, lest the Christian people forget the Divine Law, yet as wanderers ought they to remain upon the earth, until their countenance be filled with shame.” (Pope Innocent III)

And then, as a matter of historical record, there is the persecution of the Jews during the crucades in the name of Christ, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Catholic Church historians have also written of, and acknowledged the persectution and killing of entire Jewish populations over allegations of descretion of the host.

Again - I appreciate these are acts of individuals (misguided) within the Church - but to the Jewish community, it is a history wroght with pain and suffering.

I think we, as Catholics, need to recognize some the troubled history of the Church (or at least of influential individuals who purported to speak as representatives of the Church)- thankfully, our current Pope (as well as John Paul II) recognized this - and amends are being made for moving forward.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[chosen_people]

Brian,

This is absolutely false. You have basically just accused Doctors’ of the Church and declared Saints of sin. A Doctor of the Church is someone that is recognized as having been of particular importance, particularly regarding their additions to theological or doctrinal matters. The title of Doctor of the Church is given to a saint from whose writings the whole Church is held to have derived great advantage and to whom “eminent learning” and “great sanctity” have been attributed by a proclamation of a pope. Anti-semitism is the hatred of people of Jewish descent. To have a hatred such as that for anyone would be sinful and would keep one from being a Saint. In addition, the Church would not have promoted and allowed the teachings and writings of these Doctors’ and Saints to be read and promoted if they considered them to be anti-semitic in anyway.

The early Church Fathers were not anti-semitic. That is not what they promoted at all.

If you believe that they were anti-semitic, then you believe the Church erred when they infallibly declared them to be Saints and Doctors’ of the Church.

It is due to politically correct language, evasive terminology with ever changing meanings, lack of knowledge of true history, and poor logic skills that many are mislead into believing this. Due to these things, anti-semitism has come to mean anyone who disagrees with the Jews, anyone who offends the Jews, and anyone who believes that the Jews are not sinless and faultless. Which is absolutely ridiculous.If those rules are to apply for the Jews, then all fairness we must apply them to everyone else.

Well yes that is the definition of anti-Semitism:shrug: When Jews are referred to by a certain Saint as being like beasts of burden fit only for slaughter that apparently, according to you, is not anti-Semitism and of course had nothing to do with the sort of attitudes that led to the Shoah. Oh wait, I read your posts on another thread and discovered that according to you there was no specific final solution for the Jews in the Shoah they were just killed like other groups and of course we can’t really be sure of the numbers. However as you also pointed out it not like the Jews are going to heaven anyway.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Anti-semitic how?

The concept as we understand it today is based on 2000 years worth of interactions, and at different times and among different societies and individuals, we in 2009 might find some of those ‘anti-semitic’ according to current definitions, and others not.

However, at the **time **of any given ‘example’, was the concept of anti-semitism (as we understand it today) known?

I’ll give you an example of a concept that we know today --tolerance. In its correct understanding, we ‘tolerate’ that with which we do not agree, rather than pursue its destruction or obliteration. Such a concept would have been completely antithetical to any person of any religious persuasion–including the Jewish people–prior to approximately AD 1700 when it because obvious that due to various causes involving not just ‘religion’ but also commerce, industrialization, etc. that certain individuals, countries, etc. were going to HAVE to accept other individuals or countries as if they did not, there would be mutual self-destruction.

This is NOT what the understanding of a Jew or Christian or Muslim or pagan would have been in those earlier centuries. To them, in regard to religion, there was truth–and there was all else which by definition was not truth. To ‘accept’ or ‘tolerate’ non truth was seen as a failure to uphold truth. You yourself might not accept that for yourself, or for ‘current society’, but that’s the way things way and we ignore this fact at peril of completely misunderstanding all history. . .

 

[chosen_people]

Anti-semitic how?

The concept as we understand it today is based on 2000 years worth of interactions, and at different times and among different societies and individuals, we in 2009 might find some of those ‘anti-semitic’ according to current definitions, and others not.

However, at the **time **of any given ‘example’, was the concept of anti-semitism (as we understand it today) known?

I’ll give you an example of a concept that we know today --tolerance. In its correct understanding, we ‘tolerate’ that with which we do not agree, rather than pursue its destruction or obliteration. Such a concept would have been completely antithetical to any person of any religious persuasion–including the Jewish people–prior to approximately AD 1700 when it because obvious that due to various causes involving not just ‘religion’ but also commerce, industrialization, etc. that certain individuals, countries, etc. were going to HAVE to accept other individuals or countries as if they did not, there would be mutual self-destruction.

This is NOT what the understanding of a Jew or Christian or Muslim or pagan would have been in those earlier centuries. To them, in regard to religion, there was truth–and there was all else which by definition was not truth. To ‘accept’ or ‘tolerate’ non truth was seen as a failure to uphold truth. You yourself might not accept that for yourself, or for ‘current society’, but that’s the way things way and we ignore this fact at peril of completely misunderstanding all history. . .

If it was just a matter of disagreement or disparaging remarks their might be a basis for your statement. Here we are talking of distinct campaign of persecution and laws against a certain people holding certain religious beliefs, the Jews.

 

[manualman]

As usual, context is crucial.

Unlike us, the early fathers and the particular Jewish culture they referred to was only generation or two at most removed from the time of Christ. The late Father Richard John Neuhaus wrote an interesting article about how crucial this factor is. The essentials of the article were that the census number of Jews just before the time of Jesus and those just a few generations later show an absolute decimation in the number of Jews, that cannot be solely attributed to the destruction of Jersusalem or Roman murder. Neuhas makes the case that, in fact, tremendous numbers of Jews indeed accepted Jesus as the messiah.

In this context, “anti-Jewish” sentiment in the writings of the early fathers must be strongly distinguished from similar sentiments expressed today. The early fathers were writing about Jewsih people who had actually encountered Christ and seen the Holy Spirit poured out in the Pentecost of the early church and REJECTED it all and refused to believe. This is simply not the same situation as that occupied by Jews several generations removed from the life of Christ. These later Jews have not mostly encountered the genuine and holy Christ in all his glory and rejected him. Rather, they have mostly rejected the flawed and distorted vision of Jesus that we flawed sinners have presented to them.

In short, those early harsh writings against Jews have no relevance today because the people who wear that label today are simply not the people who were written about back then.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Well yes that is the definition of anti-Semitism:shrug: When Jews are referred to by a certain Saint as being like beasts of burden fit only for slaughter that apparently, according to you, is not anti-Semitism and of course had nothing to do with the sort of attitudes that led to the Shoah. Oh wait, I read your posts on another thread and discovered that according to you there was no specific final solution for the Jews in the Shoah they were just killed like other groups and of course we can’t really be sure of the numbers. However as you also pointed out it not like the Jews are going to heaven anyway.

Regarding the Saints and the early teachings of the Church. Tantum Ergo is absolutely correct. The historical time context is absolutely relevant. To take what occurred at that time and judge it based on our current times does not work. Truth is considered relative now, in the time of the early Church (and throughout much of history) it was not. Preserving and protecting truth was of the utmost importance. All people sin, even Saints work to overcome sin. But they do not become Saints while they have an attachment to sin. The Church obviously did not believe that these Saints were anti-semitic and attached to the sin of hatred, or they would not have been named Saints.

As for my other posts, there is nothing anti-semitic about them. Simply becuase you are Jewish and you don’t like something does not make it anti-semitic.

Yes, I do not believe that the loss of Jewish life is superior to the loss of any other life. ** I believe the loss of all life is equal.** You seem to believe that is not the case. That alone is enough to discard what you have to say.

Read your history, Hitler targeted all types of people. His first main target was the Poles. Based on the paper trail in Poland, he killed approximately 3 million Jews AND 3 million Catholics. Yes, that is right, he killed an equal amount of both. They were killed because they were Poles. He also targeted disabled, Jehovah Witnesses, gypsies, and those of African descent (such as malatos). The crime was the same, regardless of which group he targeted.

Throughout history, there have been other holocausts as well. Other groups of people have been targeted for their religious views, nationality, or other reasons. Those holocaust are equally evil.

Do a little more research and you will find that the numbers among the historians varies. I am not talking about the controversial historians, in fact, many of these are Jewish historians. Most all give a number below 6 million. And many of them state that paper evidence is not available ot support the numbers they have. They use statistics and prior census records to estimate a number.

Do I believe that Jews need to convert to attain salvation, YES. There is no other reason to be Catholic except that it is the Truth. Not part of the truth but the whole truth. I believe God is real. I believe in Truth. I believe the Catholic Church is the Truth. If someone believes their Faith has the truth then they have to believe that everyone should convert to it. If they do not believe that, then they really do not believe at all.

Do I believe there are Jews in Heaven, Yes. There are Jews in Heaven. The first Christians were all Jews. They are in Heaven. The Blessed Mother, Saint Joseph, the Apostles, etc. - in Heaven. I am sure there have been many other Jews since that time who became Catholics, too, and are likely in Heaven.

 

[Robbinson]

As usual, context is crucial.

Unlike us, the early fathers and the particular Jewish culture they referred to was only generation or two at most removed from the time of Christ. The late Father Richard John Neuhaus wrote an interesting article about how crucial this factor is. The essentials of the article were that the census number of Jews just before the time of Jesus and those just a few generations later show an absolute decimation in the number of Jews, that cannot be solely attributed to the destruction of Jersusalem or Roman murder. Neuhas makes the case that, in fact, tremendous numbers of Jews indeed accepted Jesus as the messiah.

In this context, “anti-Jewish” sentiment in the writings of the early fathers must be strongly distinguished from similar sentiments expressed today. The early fathers were writing about Jewsih people who had actually encountered Christ and seen the Holy Spirit poured out in the Pentecost of the early church and REJECTED it all and refused to believe. This is simply not the same situation as that occupied by Jews several generations removed from the life of Christ. These later Jews have not mostly encountered the genuine and holy Christ in all his glory and rejected him. Rather, they have mostly rejected the flawed and distorted vision of Jesus that we flawed sinners have presented to them.

In short, those early harsh writings against Jews have no relevance today because the people who wear that label today are simply not the people who were written about back then.

This is a fair point and a distinction I was, admittedly, not sensitive enough to. Thank you for sharing that insight. I can see how a distinction could be made between the mindset of the early church fathers (given historical context) and that of later in history.

Ultimately, to NeelyAnn’s point in the more recent post - we should strive to avoid prejudices of any kind against any people. The central tenant of the gospel (second to faith - but flowing from faith) is love and forgiveness. If we all keep our head down and focus on those attributes, the world will be a better place for all of us.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[peary]

As far as I know, the “early Church” was comprised of Jews, for the most part. However, by the time of the Apostle’s Creed, and later the Nicene Creed, both specified that the death of Christ was the result of the actions of Pontius Pilate, and not the Jews.

By the time a majority of Christians were Gentiles, this is when anti-semitism raised its ugly head in the Church. But it was also a two-edged sword - Christian Jews were being thrown out of their own synagogues and were being persecuted by their own (i.e., Saul of Tarsus, who did a lot of persecuting, by the way). It went downhill from there. Even an early pope cordoned off the Jewish section of Rome in order to keep them in the ghetto.

Even as late as the 20th century, you had anti-semitism in the Church (i.e., Poland, Russia, Germany, etc.).