Antisemitism and the New Testament is the discussion of how some Christians' views of Judaism in the New Testament have contributed to discrimination against Jewish people throughout history and in the present day.

The idea that the New Testament is antisemitic is a controversy that has emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust and is often associated with a thesis put forward by Rosemary Ruether.Rosemary Ruether Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1996 pp.23ff.John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 1985 pp.13ff. Debates surrounding various positions partly revolve around how antisemitism is defined, and on scholarly disagreements over whether antisemitism has a monolithic continuous history or is instead an umbrella term covering many distinct kinds of hostility to Jews over history.Falk pp.8ff.

Factional agendas underpin the writing of the canonical texts, and the various New Testament documents are windows into the conflict and debates of that period.Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz, Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement: An Unintended Journey, Springer, 2013 p.93. According to Timothy Johnson, mutual slandering among competing sects was quite strong in the period when these works were composed.Lloyd Kim Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Supersessionism?, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006 p.14. The New Testament moreover is an ensemble of texts written over decades and "it is quite meaningless to speak about a single New Testament attitude".Guy G Strousma, 'From anti-Judaism to antisemitism in Early Christianity', p.5:'I wish to recall that . . these texts were written in rather diverse milieus, and that therefore it is quite meaningless to speak about a single New Testament attitude.'; p.16 'The context and meaning of the rejection of the Jews in the Gospel of John, . .are vastly different from Chrysostom's anti-Jewish invective. We cannot speak of a single early Christian or Patristic attitude toward Jews and Judaism, or imply its existence. Both the relationship of Christianity to Judaism and the Christians' perceptions of Jews were totally different at the end of the fourth century than they had been three hundred years previously'.

The New Testament and Christian antisemitism

According to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, there are ten themes in the New Testament that have been sources of anti-Judaism and antisemitism:Rabbi James Rudin, Christians & Jews—Faith to Faith: Tragic History, Promising Present, Fragile Future, Jewish Lights Publishing, 2013 p.89.

Cook believes that both contemporary Jews and contemporary Christians need to reexamine the history of early Christianity, and the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect consisting of followers of a Jewish Jesus, to a separate religion often dependent on the tolerance of Rome while proselytizing among gentiles loyal to the Roman Empire, to understand how the story of Jesus came to be recast in an anti-Jewish form as the Gospels took their final form.Michael Cook 2008 Modern Jews Engage the New Testament Page no.required

Some scholars say that critical verses in the New Testament have been used to incite prejudice and violence against Jewish people. Professor Lillian C. Freudmann, author of Antisemitism in the New Testament (University Press of America, 1994) has published a study of such verses and the effects that they have had in the Christian community throughout history. Similar studies have been made by both Christian and Jewish scholars, including, Professors Clark Williamsom (Christian Theological Seminary), Hyam Maccoby (The Leo Baeck Institute), and Norman A. Beck (Texas Lutheran College).

New Testament

Some verses in the New Testament describe Jews in a positive way, attributing to them salvation and divine love.

According to the New Testament Gospels, Jesus, during the triumphal entry into Jerusalem before Passover, was greeted by a large crowd. Jesus was arrested by Romans and tried by the Sanhedrin. After the trial, Jesus was given over to the Roman authorities, led by Pontius Pilate, who duly tried him again and, at the urging of the people, had him crucified. Mark 14:43–46 records Judas Iscariot betraying Jesus to the Roman authorities, while John 19:11 and Acts 4:27 and 13:27–28 attribute responsibility for Jesus's death to Pilate, the Roman military forces, and the Jewish leadership and populace of Jerusalem at the time.

Gospel of Mark According to the Gospel of Mark, the crucifixion of Jesus was authorized by Roman authorities at the insistence of leading Jews (Judeans) from the Sanhedrin. Paul H. Jones writes:Paul H. Jones, 'The Christian Formation of the Jew as Religious Other', in Encounter 67:2 2006 pp.161-197.

Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew is often evaluated as the most Jewish of the canonical gospels, and yet it is sometimes said that it is anti-Judaic or antisemitic.Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, Liturgical Press 1991 p.20.

The Gospel of Matthew has given readers the impression that his hostility toward Jews increases as his narrative progresses, culminating in chapter 23.Samuel Sandmel cited Harrison, The Gospel of Matthew, p.20. In chapter 21, the parable of the vineyard, which is strikingly similar to Isaiah 5:1-30, is followed by the great "stone" text, an early Christological interpretation of Psalm 118: "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone". The Old Testament allusions appear to suggest that the author thought God would call to account Israel's leaders for maltreating Christ, and that the covenant will pass to the gentiles who follow Christ,Frank E.Eakin, What Price Prejudice:Christian Antisemitism in America, Paulist Press 1998 p.36. a view that arose in intersectarian polemics in Judaism between the followers of Christ and the Jewish leadership.Rosemary Ruether, Christianity and Social Systems: Historical Constructions and Ethical Challenges, Rowman & Littlefield, 2009 p.61. Then, in chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded. First, a series of "woes" are pronounced against the Pharisees:

Certain passages that speak of the destruction of Jerusalem contain elements interpreted as indications of Matthew's anti-Judaic attitudes. Jesus is said to have lamented over the capital: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it...See, your house is left to you, desolate".Frank S. Thielman, Theology of the New Testament, Zondervan 2011 pp.102f. Again, Jesus is made to predict the demise of the Temple: "Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down".James W. Aageson, Windows on Early Christianity: Uncommon Stories, Striking Images, Critical Perspectives, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016 pp.43ff. Such visions of an end to the old Temple may be read as embodying the replacement theology, according to which Christianity supersedes Judaism.

The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second-Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people:

Some have interpreted this "blood guilt" text to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus. Shelly Matthews writes:

Douglas Hare noted that the Gospel of Matthew avoids sociological explanations for persecution:

The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.

Gospel of John In the Gospel of John, the word Ἰουδαῖοι, usually translated the Jews, is used 63 times,Count from New King James Version as calculated by BibleGateway.com online versionReimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 'Wrestling with Johannine Anti-Judaism: A Hermeneutical Framework for the Analysis of the Current Debate', in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, pp.3-41 p.15. in a hostile sense 31 times,R. Alan Culpepper, 'Anti-Judaism in the Fourth Gospel as a Theological Problem for Christian Interpreters', in Reimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (eds.),Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Publisher Westminster John Knox Press, 2001 pp.61-82, p.64. and no distinctions are made between Jewish groups. The Sadducees, for example, prominent elsewhere, are not distinguished.Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, Baker Academic, 2002 pp.248ff. The enemies of Jesus are described collectively as the "", in contradistinction to the other evangelists, who do not generallyAn exception is Gospel of Matthew 27:25 'And all the people (πᾶς ὁ λαὸς) answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" ascribe to the "" collectively calls for the death of Jesus. In the other three texts, the plot to put Jesus to death is always presented as coming from a small group of priests and rulers, the Sadducees.Mark 11-17-28 ('the chief priests, scribes and the elders'); Luke 20:1-2; Matthew 21:23. The Gospel of John is the primary source of the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus, which later became fixed in Christian minds.Gerd Theissen, Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002 p.68.

In several places, John's gospel also associates the "" with darkness and with the devil. In John 8:37-39; 44–47, Jesus says, speaking to a group of Pharisees:

Although the modern consensus is that the term "" (Jews) in John refers exclusively to religious authorities,Kierspel, p.13. the basis for this statement has been challenged, and John's use of the term "" remains a complex and debated area of biblical scholarship, though it is accepted that it is not a case of antisemitism.BPVV, pp.15-17R Alan Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, Abington Press 1998 p.294:'The Greek term hoi Ioudaioi can mean "the Jews", as it is usually translated, but it can also mean "the Judeans." In the Gospel of John the group designated by this term appears to be variously Judeans (as opposed to Galileans or Samaritans), the Judean leaders (where it is used interchangeably with "the Pharisees"), or-less frequently-Jews as opposed to Gentiles. The meaning of the term Ioudaioi, which is used 71 times in the Gospel, must therefore be determined by the context of each occurrence. There are places in John where the term can hardly mean "the Jews." For example, although the crowd in Jerusalem at the Festival of Booths must have been predominantly Jewish, they still fear the Ioudaioi. By translating hoi Ioudaioi as "the Jews" in this context, the NRSV and other translations produce a reading that makes little sense. Here it is clear that hoi Ioudaioi refers to a much more limited group opposed to Jesus, either certain Judean Jews or the religious authorities. The same difficulties appear elsewhere in the Gospel.' New Testament scholar J.G. Dunn writes:

Reflecting the consensus that John's use of the term refers strictly to Jewish religious authorities, some modern translations, such as Today's New International Version, remove the term "Jews" and replace it with more specific terms to avoid antisemitic connotations.Kierspel, pp.13-14. For example, Messianic Bibles, as well as the Jesus Seminar, often translate this as "Judeans” (residents of Judea) in contrast to residents of Galilee.Frank Sherman and Sarah Henrich,Difficult Texts: Interpreting New Testament Images of Jews and Judaism, in Darrell Jodock (ed.), Covenantal Conversations: Christians in Dialogue with Jews and Judaism , Fortress Press 2008 pp. 76-90, p. 205 n. 13.