Talk:Jewish deicide

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jewish deicide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history (assessed as High-importance). Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the following sentence which I introdiced myself:

According to the Kingdom of David PBS TV documentary, the latter term is attributed to the preacher John Chrysostom, who introduced it in his cermons against "Judaizers".^[1]</nowiki>

Here is the full translated text of all 8 anti-Judaizer cermons. Indeed, he says that Jews murdered Christ, but I see no immediate indication on a term "Christ killer". (I see phrases "those who slew Christ", "Christ whom they crucified", "slayers of Christ", "those who shed the blood of Christ") It may be a problem or artifact of translation (several are known). Also, this website does not have the source of the translation, hence there is some doubt in translation.

So until I see a WP:RS, supplied with original Greek text, I don't think that the statement is properly grounded and I don't trust American TV to be a reliable source in this respect.

Also the "John Chrysostom" article referring to Walter Laqueur's book mentions the term "assassins of Christ"

In any case "Christ killer" is a typically English language collocation and one must be careful in claiming that some Ancient Roman of Greek "first introduced it".

What do you think, colleagues? Meanwhile I will write something vague to replace. Mukadderat (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a ref to 1996 book quoting this (Malcolm Hay, 1950) for "assassins of Christ" term attributed to Chrysostom. Mukadderat (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the article 'Kingdom of David itself requires expert oversight. Mukadderat (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When searching certain antisemitic topics in wikipedia using google I could not help but notice that there is an enormous amount of content duplication in the "Antisemitism" domain, and some of it starts diverging and turning into chaos, while other sits cut-and-pasted neglected and unreferenced. It particular, I would strongly recommend you'all to refresh familiarity with wikipedia:Summary style. IMO it will help to cope with this text bloating due to duplication.

Do you have any wikiProject which keeps an eye from the "bird's-eye view"? If not I'd advise to have one.

Anyway, I wrote the separate "Jewish deicide" article, mostly by cut'n'paste from wikipedia and subsequent removal of errors and nonsense. And I linked it from surprisingly many wikipedia article, so I am wondering why the idea to write in did not occur to someone earlier.

I don't think I will continue to elaborate it (only watch against vandalism). Therefore I would like you to ask three things:

1. Address the concern in section #Christ killers above
2. Expand/fix the article
3. Optionally find a better article title (I hope it will happen without move wars)

Good luck, bye, Mukadderat (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that many muslim extremists have apparently transformed the charge of deicide into that of murderers of prophets (cf article in The Atlantic [1]). Some of them believe that jews had treated both Jesus and Mohammad quite unfairly, although there is lack of consensus on their part into many aspects of Jesus's human and divine life and also on the cause of death of Mohammad. ADM (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christians differ, in spite of the widespread "adherence" to the Nicene Creed, as to whether or not Jesus was God; a concept defined as Incarnation, and iconised in the concept of the Trinity. It is only according with a "Jesus == God" concept and point of view, that the "deicide" term has any relevance, and even in this context the notion that any human being(s) could actually kill (a, the) God is reasonably ludicrous. So the "deicide" term is a canard, and it should be stated so, and of course including the above explanation, distinguishing the canard as associated with a particular Christological concept. -Stevertigo 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your verifiable source claiming it is a "canard?" Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo, along with Slrubenstein's point, as far as I am aware almost all significant Christian denominations, aside from perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses, consider Jesus to be God. Do you have any source for your surprising claim that "Christians differ, in spite of the widespread "adherence" to the Nicene Creed, as to whether or not Jesus was God"? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it does seems a bit of a stretch to go from belief in Jesus's divinity to an outright accusation of Jewish deicide, there should perhaps be discussion on the inherent tension between the doctrinal obligation to strongly affirm the divinity of Jesus against heretical proponents of Arianism and the ethical requirement to oppose a purely political brand of antisemitism. ADM (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that, according to the Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon (451), Jesus was God in the sense that Jesus' divine nature was God (i.e. the logos). Yet Jesus' human nature was not God; it was united to God. Purely as a verbal affirmation, it is acceptable to speak of deicide in Christianity because Jesus was the man united to God "without confusion, change, separation or division." God *incarnate* was killed. However, God (the logos) was not killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.93.34 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The belief in some form of Monotheism cannot allow for the death of the one only God to be a final possibility since God who is eternal and everlasting cannot be killed or die resulting in no more God. Also, the belief in the resurrection as the final victory over death should overcome getting stumbled by this since death was not the final outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9C60:122A:159B:FCD0:2C02:DC0A (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are interesting anthropological theories that talk about the possibility of an archaic or primitive deicide before the time of Jesus. For instance, in the writings of René Girard, it says that Jesus merely reveals an earlier deicide which may have been that of his father Abba. The early victim is sometimes represented as a proto-semitic pastor-hunter (El), who was ritually killed while he was out hunting. ADM (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to discuss exactly the same thing as Responsibility for the death of Jesus. These articles should really be merged and a better title might need to be found. Macfanatic (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't be. I bet you're a jew! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.85.17 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Jesus was born jewish would seem to have a bearing on this article. The following paragraph from the Jesus article seems particularly relevant in fact: "Critical Biblical scholars and historians believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life. Most agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." With the way this article is currently structured, there is little to show that this 'jewish deicide' belief is discredited and only maintained as an article about anti semitic attitudes, other than the grouping within the series. It would be rather easy for a careless reader to come away with an incorrect conclusion 124.168.96.24 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the article should cast doubt over Jesus legitimacy? Jesus and his teachings are in direct opposition to Judaism after all. In that context, it's reasonable and right he should be put to death from a Jewish point of view? The issue of "Jewish deicide" or guilt, is irrelevant and illogical even then to a practising or religious Jew. He went against the religion, he got punished in the usual way (only in his case, it was by carried out by the Romans, rather than by stoning).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.148.50 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in this section is something of a logical syllogism that is more a persuasive postulate than a statement. I removed it for the following reasons:

1. This statement starts with, "It is also important to remember..." That is the beginning of a persuasive proposition, not the issuance of fact.
2. The relevance of Christ's stating that He would rebuild the temple in 3 days to the topic is questionable, at best.
3. Christ's knowledge of His fate and that His Crucifixion would fulfill prophesy is not grounds for the killing of Him to be called a "favor" to the world.

Lmt 7816 (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review the link much of the exact text is entierly the same as this article on wiki.http://reference.findtarget.com/search/Jewish%20deicide/Wikimakesmart (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as that link says, it's taken from Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who understands add a section explaining why Jews would need to be punished for helping Jesus do what he was sent to Earth to do? --I mean, doesn't general Christian belief say that God gave his only son so that people may have everlasting life? If Jesus wasn't executed and instead lived to a ripe old age, wouldn't "God's sacrifice" be kind of meaningless? So even if the Jews were responsible, why are they condemned and not celebrated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.99.175 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the need for some discussion on this new dimension about the destiny implied in the bible, particularly Jesus's own prophecy of his death. Also, let's not forget he was betrayed to the Jewish Elders, by his own disciple, Judas who was told in advance that he would betray Jesus, much to his disbelief. Jesus could have escaped his death then at any time, had he wanted to. He chose not to, and instead, to let events run their course, knowing how it would end. There's a part in the bible where he prays to God on the night before his being seized and asks why it's to be so and why he must suffer. And then there's the resurrection. He predicted that too. The resurrection in itself (if you believe the New Testament) is proof that he was the Son of God and that he was on earth to fulfil his destiny, i.e. to save mankind from their sins, before ascending into heaven to be at his fathers side in the kingdom of heaven. All these elements taken together would seem to support the idea that Jesus was "born to die" and this was in fact Gods will and plan for him.

Context and rational

What have the Jews to feel guilty of anyway concerning the Jewish part in Jesus's death? If you look at the context, Jesus was going against the established religion and order. Others had done so before and the Jewish Elders had no reason to think he was not just another "prophet". However, Jesus directly challenged established Jewish practices and attacked the religion, even in their template. To the Jews, this was blasphemy, a crime usually punishable by death in those times. How were the Jewish Elders to know he was the actual Son of God and so should be spared? Also, consider that Jesus, from the accounts in the bible, commanded a massive public following and audience wherever he spoke. It was probably only a matter of time, before his teachings brought him into conflict with the Romans or Jewish Elders. You can't declare yourself "King of the Jews", challenge and attack the established order and rules of a society, and not expect there to be severe consequences. It's not like the Elders KNEW he was the Son of God by some proof and then acted to eliminate him. They simply acted in plain ignorance or fear, to protect their positions and religion according to the bibles account.

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to be contradictory and somewhat confusing in what point is being made.

First, the evidence is presented that the Jews may have had the legal authority to seize Jesus for blasphemy and execute him themselves without referral to the Romans. If this is so, then why didn't they? One possible explanation is them knowing or suspecting that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and not wanting his blood on their hands, but also not wanting him threatening their position and religion, and so needing him eliminating. This view then, if you believe this to be the case, does support the idea of Jewish deicide, because there's a degree of plotting and scheming.

The bible, as this section points out, portrays the Romans as very reluctant to get involved and to pass any sentence on Jesus. If you believe the bible to be true and unbiased, there could be several explanations for their reluctance. The most obvious being that Jesus had not violated their laws or threatened the Roman Empire directly, so what exactly would they trial and punish him for? Secondly, if they trialled him for preaching false teachings/blasphemy, surely that would be beyond their jurisdiction being non-Jews and therefore the duty of the Jewish Elders to decide?

The article suggests the Romans would have no problem killing anyone who threatens the Roman Empire or their rule and established order. However, the way the bible tells it is that the Jewish Elders just wanted rid of Jesus and plotted with the Romans to do their bidding in this regard, and the Romans knew their reasons, and hence their reluctance to do their dirty work. They didn't want to kill an innocent (and possibly important) man in their eyes, and the eyes of those who followed Jesus. This would make the Romans look very bad. This then, would seem to reinforce Jewish deicide.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.148.50 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend section on that as well, for one must look at the methods of both races. Jews executed by stoning people to death, which was not Christ's fate. He was crucified on a cross, which is what the Romans did. That tends to get ignored or glossed over. Putting aside the fact that some punks go around calling the Jews "Christ Killer #1" and the Italians "Christ Killer #2", does this merit a footnote? 69.143.110.110 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many forget that the Judeans and Romans of the past are not exactly the same as the Jews and Italians of today due to differences over time and place. Many translations have Jews instead of Judeans which appears to be incorrect due to time and place. However, Roman is not translated as Italian for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9C60:122A:159B:FCD0:2C02:DC0A#top (talk • contribs) talk]]) 12:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re this The edit summary that he is not notable enough for a quote box, has half a reason.

• That he is notable on this is shown by the fact that one highly scholarly source cites him precisely for this statement.
• Perhaps it should not be "boxed" but the quote itself is notable for the reason stated above.
• What was objectionable about the original framing of this issue was to exclude what, in highly specialized scholarship, is known, dismissing the obvious facts of history (if Christ is 'history' is another matter. I have my doubts, and were I to have an opinion, I would think Maimonides's statement fairly close to a strong probability - I.e., that an innovating preacher began to utter remarks that were considered doctrinally abhorrent to his faith, and he was put on trial in a religious court, and, as was the norm, there and in numerous other major religions, sentenced to death for blasphemy. Deicide had nothing to do with the matter). We know from the Talmud and Maimonides that one tradition held he was executed for these reasons, and that, as Klinghoffer logically states, means that in itself, stating these facts cannot be considered a smear on the Jewish people. It certainly became an anti-Semitic canard when Christianity esp. Matthew reframed the story as something 'all Jews' (in Jerusalem) wanted. In that form, it is profoundly anti-Semitic. That is what needed correction.Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That an antisemetic canard has a germ of truth somewhere way underneath is hardly surprising. The most effective forms of bigotry often have some "truth" that they can point too. Pretending that the actual scholarship is the basis for the bigotry is of course improper. People calling Jews chritkiller do not care about Maimonides. No being quoted in a book is not evidence of importance. A book noting that Klinghoffer was an important scholar would be.2600:1010:B063:A0C1:B1C5:C625:F99D:5DD9 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly.

• 'A Bet din may have condemned the person (known to Christians as) Jesus to death' is an historical proposition, supported by the Bavli and Maimonides.
• That the Jewish people are responsible for the death of Jesus is an anti-Semitic canard.

No member of any ethnic group can be held responsible for what one, or a number of members of that group do, or did in the past. All anti-Semitism is based on that utterly fatuous and jejune confusion. Met an American soldier? Think of Mai Lai! A German bureaucrat? entertain dark thoughts about the Holocaust? An Israeli? Uh, complicit with Deir Yassin? A Muslim? Ah Bin Laden!

The first has nothing to do with the 'Jewish people'. The second has everything to do with the Jewish people.

They are two utterly distinct things. This whole area of discourse is deeply contaminated by fears (understandable), point-scoring (deplorable), the instrumental use of ideas etc.

Scholarship gets nowhere being fearful: politics goes everywhere, stoking fear. Kinghoffer did something important, as a respected writer. He clarified a dangerous meme. Politics disallows Jews from praying on the Temple Mount; politics stops Christians from praying at David's Tomb; politics stops Muslims praying at Joseph's Tomb. To a skeptic it is all a nightmare of ethno-religious obsessions with a concept of sacred possession that denies community and rebuffs the idea that one group's religion has the same rights as another's. Klinghoffer is an important voice, like Reuven Firestone, and so many others, that bridge the historical gap between popular prejudice and the austere world of scholarship. The result is clarity and a sense of our larger humanity, something that goes beyond all too rooted tendency of men to deny the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jewish deicide is an appropriate term. To my ear it already somewhat prejudices the case, by insinuating that deicide is 'Jewish'. It would be justifiable if the algorithms turned the eyes of people looking for 'stuff' on a favorite topic to this, where, hopefully, the concept and slur are or will be sorted out. But perhaps The Accusation of Jewish Deicide would be less ambiguous and neutral?Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I don't know how to edit references but the second footnote links to books.google.it - meaning that it is inaccessible outside of Italy. Please could someone modify this URL by changing ".it" to ".com" so it becomes universally accessible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.182.152 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. —PermStrump(talk) 22:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At a time when Christians were widely persecuted, Melito's speech is believed, by some scholars, to have been an appeal, not to punish Jews, but for Rome to spare Christians.^{[1][dubious – discuss]}

This rang false to me as special pleading for Christianity, so I added, 'according to some'. Che cking Grant however I can't see support for this re P. Pascha. It's true that Christians were widely persecuted, and even at the time said by one source to have no right to exist, but the text regards the Peri Pascha, not Melito's appeal to M. Aurelius, and at a quick glance I can't see Grant's work underwriting the idea attributed to it. I'll read it closely tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in the past tense and refers to Jewish deicide as a 'historic' belief. Is there evidence that such views are no longer common amongst Christians? Do any antisemites continue to use this theme? --jftsang 21:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering the same thing. Shouldn't this article be in present tense? - Daveout(talk) 21:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD, and given I can't see any opposition manifest on this page in any section to the continued existence of the belief, at least outside the Catholic Church, I've changed "was” to “is”. Steepleman (t) 04:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have quite a Roman bias in casting the accusation as a historical belief. Whilst the Catholic Church may have condemned the belief, it is not formally condemned in, to my knowledge, most other churches, and remains a valid and live theological position. The entire article is riddled with this bias against the belief. I have recast the introduction in the present tense. Steepleman (t) 04:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it's appropriate to focus on David Klinghoffer's views on this article; he's mainly famous for working on intelligent design, and (as an employee of the Discovery Institute, a Christian think tank) his views on his Judaism are fairly far outside of the mainstream. Additionally, while he has a lot of opinions on Judaism and its history, he doesn't seem to have any actual expertise on the topic beyond being Jewish and working for the Discovery Institute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad. The edit summary didn’t show when I looked at this. Andyjsmith (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should remove the word "historic" from the first sentence because the belief, although less common than in the past, is still held by a minority of Christians. According to a recent survey, "26 percent of Americans believe the Jews killed Jesus". The recent film The Passion of Christ was accused of portraying Jewish deicide—and some defended it on the basis of this portrayal being accurate. According to this paper, the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches reject deicide, but that means that some Protestants do not reject it. Catrìona (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. It is only “historic” from the point of view of some particular denominations' theology. Steepleman (t) 11:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been browsing Wilson's comments on Werner unfortunately some all-important pages are missing on GBooks, though Melito's text is found elsewhere. Werner's claim “Melito of Sardis: The First Poet of Deicide" seems to be an anachronism. This is c 160CE, writers of this period generally did not equate Jesus with God. Jesus did not by consensus advance to full God-hood until 100 years later. Melito seems overall to be talking about regicide or christocide, not deicide, it is only in the concluding hyperbole and polemic that he steps it up to charge the killing of Jesus as in effect murder of the incarnation of God. Anyway, I have added the actual "murder of God" sentence, and subheaded 2nd from 4th Century. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The text in Melito is explicit and runs: ὁ θεὸς πέφονευται. ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἀνῄρηται ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς Ἰσραηλίτιδος. You can see the sourcing I gave at Peri Pascha. In the incipit he explicitly states that Christ was god and man

Ὡς γὰρ υἱὸς τεχθείς͵ καὶ ὡς ἀμνὸς ἀχθείς͵ καὶ ὡς πρόβατον σφαγείς͵ καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ταφείς͵ ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν ὡς θεός͵ φύσει θεὸς ὢν καὶ ἄνθρωπος.(8:For having been born as son, led to slaughter as a lamb, slaughtered as a sheep, and buried as a man, he rose from the dead as god, being by nature both god and man.)

The latter patristic statement ascribing to him the deicide thesis were not retroactive anachronisms, as the late publication of the Peri Pasqua proved.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greek racism against Jews. Many books have the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4109:E864:35BD:2D56:96AE:F7AE (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(This section regards a conflict between myself and User:Watchlonly whom I have notified of the discussion I wish to have.) As there seems to be conflict I intend here to explain the edits I have made which you dispute:

1) Jewish deicide is an antisemitic canard -> Jewish deicide is a theological position of an anti-Semitic nature

Antisemitic canard states that "Antisemitic canards are "sensational reports, misrepresentations, or fabrications" that are defamatory towards Judaism as a religion or defamatory towards Jews as an ethnic or religious group." I felt that this was unduly harsh towards a religious position as well as alleging that it was categorically false (as though an encyclopedia has the authority to call a religious belief false). I wished however to retain a mention of the inherent anti-Semitism so as to avoid 'white-washing' the article.

2) a number of Christian groups reject the Second Vatican Council -> a number of Christian groups, including some Catholics, reject the Second Vatican Council

I just wanted to include this because some traditionalist Catholics reject Vatican II in whole or in part. This isn't really necessary or relevant, so feel free to remove it. The other edits I made that you reverted were grammatical (to account for the other changes) & I see no reason why you would dispute them.

Beaneater (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the theological origins of course, and I have adjusted to include your point. People who can't see history in any other than clichés ('canards' everywhere: Maimonides guilty of a canard?) shouldn't edit complex articles. In Post-Vatican theological terms, to be Catholic and anti-Semitic is a contradiction in terms, but of course, religions are not known for logical consistency. Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to both of you - Jewish deicide may be alleged by religious organisations, but it is a statement regarding facts rather than religious belief. And it is a factually incorrect statement. Some people cite religious texts as justification for their belief in a flat Earth, but saying that the Earth is flat is not a 'religious belief' - it is a falsehood, plain and simple. Jewish deicide is exactly the same. The idea that Jews are inherently responsible for the actions of one person 2,000 years ago is patently and demonstrably untrue. It has been used in a sensationalist context and as justification for anti-Semitic attacks for as long as it has existed as an idea. It is used in Wikipedia (as well as in many other sources) as a prime example of an antisemitic trope.

It's an antisemitic trope. That is a fact. Wikipedia deals in facts (as well as other forms of information) and it would be utterly remiss of us, both as an encyclopedia and as a socially responsible organisation, to omit the fact that Jewish deicide is an antisemitic trope. Thecolonpagesaretoocomplicated (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an historical article, and definition 'Jewish deicide' as ab initio an 'antisemitic trope' is reading a very complex history retroactively. There is a fair possibility that the composer of Matthew's gospel was Jewish Christian/a Jew who adopted Jesus's version of Judaism/a convert to Judaism. We don't know. What is known is that all four gospels were written within a Jewish diasporic context. The passages in question, with their enmity against 'scribes', 'pharisees' and 'Judeans' (Ioudaioi bore this geographical connotation), laid the ground first for judeophobia, which in turn gave rise, as Christianity became an official religion under the Roman Empire, to antisemitism. Antisemitism as now used has stronger connotations than the traditional condescension and contempt of a reluctantly tolerated (St. Augustine gave this theological warrant) religious minority characteristic of the Ist millenium. It makes no sense to speak of these evangelical sources re deicide, given their infra-Jewish or competitive Christian-Jewish contexts, 'anti-semitic', a term coined in 1879. If only because the early Church was, if you use a term like 'Semitic', demographically strongly 'semitic'. We go for nuance here. Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though this article deals with the history of this idea, it is ultimately talking about a trope that still exists today, long after the coinage of the term 'antisemitic' - though just because that word didn't exist before 1879, doesn't mean that antisemitism didn't exist before 1879. Dinosaurs existed before we discovered fossils, even though they didn't have a name. Moreover, the fact that the original sources used by antisemites in spreading this trope may have been Jewish, makes no difference whatsoever to the fact that this is an antisemitic trope. If you were to blame a modern-day Turkish person for the Armenian genocide, you would be branded a racist, and rightly so. To blame a modern-day Jewish person for the killing of Jesus, regardless of any historical fact or reporting, is antisemitic. It's as simple as that. You would be discriminating against them for something they didn't do, simply because they are Jewish. That is antisemitism. And given that this 'Christ-killing' nonsense is wheeled out by antisemites of many kinds on a regular basis, it fits snugly into the definition of an 'antisemitic trope', as described by the article on antisemitic tropes. Thecolonpagesaretoocomplicated (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks are just personal opinions on a topic, and have no traction precisely because they are your personal views. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant historical scholarship, on early Jewish-Christian and jewish communities, and on the development of antisemitism. Many scholars make a distinction between ancient judeophobia and modern antisemitism. One doesn't get one's way by editwarring to get one's personal opinion over. One establishes a text by thorough reading of the relevant historical and conceptual histories. Read the late lamented Robert Chazan's, From Anti-Judaism to Anti-Semitism:Ancient and Medieval Christian Constructions of Jewish History Cambridge University Press 2016 ISBN 978-1-107-15246-5 and only then get back to reformulate your opinions in terms that wikipedia accepts and see if your idiosyncratic view can get some wider purchase,Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. Just because the concept of Jewish deicide is centered on a historical event, doesn't make the trope purely historical. On the contrary, accusations of Jewish deicide are still happening now. It is a modern idea as well as a historical one. Regardless of when antisemitism 'developed', antisemitism is here now, just like how this trope is still here now. When Jewish deicide is used as a trope against Jewish people now, it is antisemitic. My view does not appear to me to be 'idiosycratic', given that the Wikipedia article on antisemitic tropes uses Jewish deicide as an example of an antisemitic trope, but if you want me to further back up this assertion then the World Jewish Congress has a nice article on it: https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/conspiracy-myths/the-myth-that-jews-are-responsible-for-the-death-of-jesus-christ. Furthermore, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance includes "Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews" in its Working Definition of Antisemitism: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism. Jewish deicide self-evidently fits those criteria. If you remain unpersuaded and still feel strongly enough to continue reverting my edits, then I will ask for a third opinion. Thecolonpagesaretoocomplicated (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Jewish advocacy sources aren't good for this type of topic. Encyclopedias are supposed to be written from a neutral, dispassionate perspective, which these sources definitely aren't writing from (which is fair enough from their perspective). "notion" seems perfectly neutral to me, and it isn't like the rest of the article is endorsing the concept or something. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not objecting to the idea of describing "Jewish deicide" as antisemitic in the lead somewhere, but I think we can be less on the nose about it than the opening sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BOLDly restored "antisemitic trope" after adding a better source. Didn't take long to find. See also these other sources. I would argue that this verbiage is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verbiage is never consistent with NPOV. Those sources, one in particular, are speaking overwhelmingly of antisemitism over the last millennium. We are describing a concept that has a history extending a millennium before that, and therefore cannot characterize it from the start as intrinsically antisemitic, since it was elaborated by Jews, converts or otherwise, who followed Jesus. All nuance is lost when a complex topic is reduced to a simplistic ahistorical caricature.Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot here depends on exactly what the article topic is, and there are at least three questions to ask about it:
(1) Did Jews kill/cause the death of Jesus Christ? (a purely historical question)
(2) Was Jesus Christ god? (a purely theological question)
(3) Can a group of people today collectively bear responsibility for what a few of their putative ancestors did centuries today? (a purely cultural question)
I call the last one cultural because the concept of inherited responsibility is culture-dependent, is not scientifically testable, and is both embraced and rejected by different people today. Personally I have no hesitation in judging a positive answer to all three questions to be an antisemitic position, but still I recognise it to be an opinion and my policy as always is to not present opinions in wikivoice but rather to refer them to some source which confirms the opinion. Zero^talk 04:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(b)'Was Jesus Christ god? (a purely theological question)

'I have no hesitation in judging a positive answer to all three questions to be an antisemitic position.'

I.e. if one assents to the proposition Jesus Christ was a god one is adopting an antisemitic position. This means that all Christians are intrinsically antisemitic (conceptually, an essentialist fallacy).Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've slipped up there, Zero. It is not 'antisemitic' to affirm JC was a god, any more than it would be to question the notion that Jesus Christ was a god. Arianism and Nontrinitarianism, all born within the bosom of Christianity, did so. I don't think I am antisemitic because I consider the idea that JC was god baloney, any more than I must have been antisemitic because before the age of reason, I was inculcated with the dogma he was a god, at an age when I'd never heard anything about Jews. Of course 1 and 3 are blatantly antisemitic.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish deicide was not, for over a thousand years, a fringe idea. It lay at the (dead)heart of a religious worldview. It died out in Western states (though not in Eastern Europe), and for centuries their Christian populations probably never heard much about it, and only then did it become what one could call a 'fringe' idea. One cannot tinker with historical articles thinking that there is only one thing worth keeping a sharp eye out for, traditional Christian enmity for Jews, and calling everything relevant to that trend, an antisemitic canard. Linguistically, a 'canard' is 'a false or unfounded report or story'. Both St. Augustine and the greatest Jewish medieval philosopher Maimonides subscribed to the belief that Jesus was killed by 'Jews' (as opposed to a 'rabbinical court' in Maimonides' implicit reading), and they founded their belief on an interpretation of (a) ancient documents which lent support for the notion. Of course, 'Jews' did not kill Jesus anymore than 'Americans' committed genocide in Cambodia or 'Russians' committed the Holodomor. A belief, however stupid or inane or false, often has its roots in reports or misreports, which supply the foundational 'evidence'. One despairs when encyclopedic articles are tweaked by a browsing which itself appears to draw on a general principle or idea that ignores the complexities of history, and which assumes generic clichés and tired boilerplate keywords (which ring an emotional bell) can somehow serve an explanatory function that allows us to dispense with the hard yakka of actually examining the weight of scholarship to ensure we get things nuanced to capture, as here, a transition from infra-Jewish polemics (all those non-Romans present at the crucifixion, Christ included, were Jews, (b) those who wrote the gospels did so within a Jewish cultural milieu and (c) the gentilization of what was a Jewish reform movement and competitiveness with traditional Jewish communities, transformed these polemics over time into an accusation of Jewish (not 'Judean' as earlier) responsibility for Jesus's death. Maimonides, as said, endorsed this as what he, like Christian theologians for a millenia and a half, as a fact, which it wasn't. But this is a long way from modern dumbed-down dismissals of a lethally powerful idea as an antisemitic canard from the very outset Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not me who slipped up, Nish. I never wrote that believing JC was god is antisemitic. I didn't say that any of (1)-(3) are antisemitic in their lonesome (though there is always room for arguing). I said "all three", which means yes+yes+yes. Zero^talk 10:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Unless the heavy dish of fettucine has gotten the better of my capacity to judge, stating that a positive answer ('positive answer to all three questions to be an antisemitic position') to the question 'was Jesus Christ god?' means that to affirm 'Jesus Christ is god' constitutes an antisemitic position. Which means propositionally, by an entailed logic, that Christianity is intrinsically antisemitic. But it's not worth bothering about. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double umm. You don't see the difference between "a positive answer to all three questions" and "a positive answer to any of the three questions"? Maybe that's because I'm a mathematician and you're not. Distinctions like that are what separates valid theorems from invalid theorems. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The few authentic antisemites I've crossed paths with would have subscribed to none of those theorums. They just hated Jews because they subscribed to the usual protocol conspiracy crap. It would have helped an innumerate dullard l like myself had you bolded all. But I stand corrected and crucified. I twice called you 'god' on talk pages (modest in 18 years) for omniscience re the topic and absolute neutrality. So, pagan or not, your status as a god remains intact in a virtual church of one believer, who, having confessed to a sin of disattention will now find an adequate form of penitence, um, only an orange juice tonight at the pub:) Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints position was deleted with the explanation "not providing a reliable source; discuss on talk page if you disagree". There were several sources provided that included scientific studies by independent researchers who are well known in the field. Here are some of the sources that were deleted as unreliable. Please explain why they are not reliable before deleting them again:

• Mauss, Armand L. (2003). All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage. University of Illinois Press. pp. 199–201. ISBN 0-252-02803-1.
• Green, Arnold H. (1994). "Jews in LDS Thought". BYU Studies Quarterly. 34 (4) (9 ed.).
• Green, Arnold H. (Spring 1999). "Gathering and Election: Israelite Descent and Universalism in Mormon Doctrine". Journal of Mormon History. 5 (21). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. JSTOR 23287743. FreePeoples (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 18 links under the "See also" category. May I suggest adding "Judensäue" to it as in Germany even today the german versions of gargoyles are still being legally preserved as a cultural heritage. Since there is no mention of John 8:44, the motivation behind this article and its many links might appear a little biased or even misleading. 178.250.226.62 (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... other than in the "Liturgy" section. Eastern Orthodoxy never had a Vatican II moment, but is there nothing to add about its theological approach to the topic? No evolution since the codification of the liturgy? (Which happened when?) Is Orthodoxy monolithic in this regard? Quite possible, but still, I wonder. Arminden (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate? 2601:143:4200:54D0:78D2:45EA:1E2C:6C52 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mindful of the previous discussions on this page, it still seems to me inappropriate to call a theological position an “antisemitic trope”, which is defined on that page as being “sensational reports, misrepresentations or fabrications”. Whether or not Jews as a whole bear the responsibility for the death of Jesus is a theological position, not a historical question. It may be antisemitic in a broad sense, but it is inappropriate to label the belief as “misrepresentations or fabrications” when it is not a historical claim which can really be falsified.

I also note that the antisemitic trope page does not treat the matter fairy either—phrases such as “radical traditionalists peddling Jewish deicide tropes” are not encyclopaedic, nor is the citation of Reddit threads about "rad trads". The discussion is also solely related to the Roman Catholic church, ignoring other denominations who do not recognise the authority of Nostra aetate. Much of the page in fact seems heavily emotional. I will therefore change the link to Antisemitism rather than Antisemitic trope. Steepleman (t) 10:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Jews as a whole bear the responsibility for the death of Jesus is a theological position, not a historical question It is also a question of antisemitism or not. Someone who blames all Jews for something that may have happened or not 2000 years ago, is clearly an antisemite. It does not matter whether you find that inappropriate. See WP:IDLI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deny that. I deny that it is an "antisemitic trope" as defined on that page. It is certainly antisemitic. Steepleman (t) 11:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit that changed "antisemitic trope" into often regarded as antisemitic does not read like that. It reads like WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to provide citations to show that it is antisemitic. The claim it is antisemitic is not cited, only that it "feeds Christian antisemitism" which is a different thing from being antisemitic in itself. I don't think it is false balance to suggest it is "often regarded" as antisemitic when the definition of antisemitism is widely debated, especially in recent years, even though I think the charge is antisemitic. Steepleman (t) 13:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are no citations to show that it is antisemitic, the wording often regarded as antisemitic is not sourced either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think those sources adequately cite an assertion that it is often regarded as antisemitic, but perhaps not clearly. Steepleman (t) 07:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's supersessionist and antisemitic, so I disagree with Steepleman. Many sources exist. e.g. [2] [3] he antisemitic trope of collective Jewish guilt for Jesus’s crucifixion Andre🚐 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supersessionism is also a legitimate position but it doesn't matter what we think is supersessionist or antisemitic-there is no evidence given that it is necessarily a "fabrication". Your sources do claim it is an antisemitic trope; however, they do not define " antisemitic trope" as a "fabrication" or "sensational report". It's clear "antisemitic trope" is being used to mean "something which is antisemitic", which is a generally held position. Steepleman (t) 07:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supersessionism is pretty often antisemitic. I'm not sure what you're saying about the definition stuff. All that matters is whether RS describe it as an antisemitic trope. It doesn't matter what the wikipedia entry on that says. Follow the sources. Andre🚐 07:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the definition given on the antisemitic trope page is the one which is not properly sourced. However, regardless, I don't see why the rest of my edits ought to have been reverted, if all your concern was with "antisemitic" vs "antisemitic trope". Steepleman (t) 07:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be legitimate improvements you want to make that got swept up in my revert, but you're making big changes without discussion that appear to have balance issues as per Hob Gadling. Let's level set that it's antisemitic and not "regarded as" antisemitic, and let's not water down the basic facts here. Can we agree on that? Andre🚐 07:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is acceptable. Steepleman (t) 08:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]