Commonly, all Jews are blamed for the supposedly immoral behavior of a few: tax farmers, liquor dealers, and the like. No other people are judged by that standard. Most Jews adhere to an exceedingly rigid code of conduct, prescribed by their Law, which prohibits immoral actions (usually) even toward gentiles.
Jews define morals differently from many gentiles. Jews believe in free will and that God generally leaves the world to run itself by the laws God created. Gentiles often believe in pervasive determinacy, where humans do not control themselves. It was, therefore, no transgression for Jewish tavern-keepers to sell alcohol to whoever wanted it, though some accused them of charging high prices and addicting people to alcohol—presumably by low prices. Jews engaged in businesses others avoided, since restrictions excluded them from agriculture, limited their trade rights and employment choices. They went where they could.
Although borrowing at interest is a matter of choice, the Law recognized that circumstances might force some to borrow against their free will and prohibited lending at interest to other Jews. Some Jews are moneylenders, but people flocked to them, because their rates were better than gentiles’. The same is true of Jewish liquor dealers and grocers. But gentiles disregard their unscrupulous co-religionists and carp on Jews.
Charges that Jews persecute Arabs are hypocritical in light of the streams of blood that established all countries, the historical standards against which Israel should be judged. Jews were accused of misanthropy because they hesitate to associate with gentiles. They did not associate with gentiles because gentiles do not observe Jewish laws of cleanliness and hold bizarre religious views, and though Jewish misanthropy may have intensified in response to their isolation in the Christian world, the Hebrews of antiquity held themselves apart from tolerant pagans—who welcomed Jews to their idolatrous festivals. A nation that introduced compulsory education twenty-three centuries ago could be snobbish. Whatever libel Jewish misanthropy did to others, the Christian authorities and commoners harmed Jews immensely more. Jews have never persecuted gentiles.
Opponents say the Jews would have persecuted the gentiles had the demographical situation been different. This is untrue as can be seen in the examples of the Khazari Khaganate and Israel, where other religions are tolerated scrupulously. While the ancient Judaic theocracy prohibited aliens from idol worship, the restriction was nothing compared to the pogroms Christians undertook against the Jews.
Some ostensibly spiritual Christians say Jews are materialists, though it is ludicrous to suggest that Jews are less spiritual than anyone else. They have clung to their religion during millennia of persecutions and consider serving God the most exalted calling. Contempt for the material often results from the inability to obtain it. Judaism praises worldly things, does not require anyone to distribute all his property for perfection, does not view the beautiful material world with Shinto melancholy. Man is not born for suffering or self-abnegation but for enjoyment. Would God have created us in his image just to make us suffer? Certainly not.
Jewish concern about the worldly looks excessive only against the background of religions and philosophies that cannot balance the spiritual and the material. Contrasted to the backdrop of hypocritical and superficial self-denial, Jews honestly accept worldly pleasures instead of repressing natural inclinations and make them boil. Jews live in peace with the material world and do not need to exile themselves to monasteries to serve God. The created world is the holiest of all places.
Some say anti-Semitism could not be so pervasive if it did not rest on a core of truth. Anti-Semitism’s universality, however, testifies against it. The situation of Jews has varied substantially in various lands and at various times, their economic and social relations with others unpredictable. Anti-Semitism must be based on something else, and that something else is fear and hatred of those “not like us”—especially if they are helpless. The establishment of a powerful Israel in 1948 began a steep decline in anti-Semitism worldwide. Now Israeli Jews, no longer helpless, can afford to be different. What they do with strength and coherence may arouse admiration or protest, but no more irrational hatred.
I am not a Gentile that believes in the "pervasive determinacy". This would delete any free will and is opposite of what G-d has given us. I relaize that your opinion is based on your experiences and what you have seen but be careful of making sweeping accusations. It tends to cover those of us who don't act a certain way. This is the equivalent of saying that all Jews are the same. It's dangerous and not true.
Also, Maybe it's a misunderstanding of terms but I would assume the Canaanites were considered Gentiles as well as many of their contemporaries. I also seem to recall the first Christians were persecuted pretty harshly.
None of this legitimizes anti-semitism. People are people and quite a few of us are not good people. There are as many reasons why people fail to do good as there are people who have ever live on this planet. It comes down to right versus wrong. Very few people have the courage to do what is right when the odds and the masses are against them. They also will continue to do wrong in order to justify their own failures.
James, but we have to generalize. There are always exceptions. There were several Arabs who opposed the mob to save the Jews in Hebron massacre. Implied, there are always exceptions.
"Gentiles" normally refers to civilized non-Jews. I'd say, Canaanites were pagans.
If early Christians were harshly persecuted, why did rabban Gamliel invented a special curse "Birkat ha-Minim" to drive them out of synagogues? Short of the curse, they frequented synagogues. Does that look like repressions?
Danny,
I understand the reason to generalize, I do it quite often. The dangerous thing to do is generalize in a way that affects those who really want to help. There is a certain amount of understanding involved but overgeneralization is dangerous.
I accept your definition of gentiles.
Yes the early Christinas visited Synagogues, but this did change. Paul was a persecutor of Christians.
Don't get me wrong I am not trying to equate suffering and persection. We all have things in our Nations and Ethnicities past that we had nothing to do with and therefore shouldn't be responsible for. However if we choose to continue with these evil acts then we cannot blame our history only ourselves.
I agree with what I see as the premise of the article. I just don't like to be lumped in with those who I don't agree with. I have the same problem with my co-religionists as well as atheists. They assume that because Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson said something or did something that I automatically agree or approve with them. My relationship with the almighty is mine and isn't controlled or dictated by others that may have similar beliefs to mine.
I am not pointing fingers or trying to shift blame, I just wish there was an easier way to explain this.
If Paul persecuted Christians, how come James was openly living in Jerusalem? How come Paul attended Apostolic Council there and was sent to the Temple for purification? How could the Jews, themselves persecuted after the war and oppressed before it, have persecuted the Christians?
Jews back then did not persecute christians. Some details for this affirmation:
1- Christians are a new concept, non existing then, since all the Jesus followers were jews. Do you have read any word in the Gospels from Jesus directing his message to gentiles? No, he just walked among Jews.
2- Once the new movement incorporated gentiles, they were precise in extirpating every jewish trace. The truth is, Saulo of Tarsis was a Seducee jew, jealous of new doctrines. I have to explain that by Jesus times, all the Saducee high level was rotten then, debating itself about how to get rid of romans and Pharisees. Jesus followers were just a "soft target" to them, thus, the hurry of Paulo in hunting them.
Anyway, with jerusalem destruction by the Romans, a lot of jew followers of Jesus fled, or dead, giving more force to non-jews "christians" to take over the new movement.
Basically "christians" then wanted to clean themselves of jewishness, partially because the big wave of jew-hating after the Jerusalem fall.
Another interesting point is that Jesus talked about gentiles pointing to Samaritans, foreign elements imported by Babylon after the first temple destruction. Hence, the expression" Galilee of the gentils"
Well, Chaim there are reportedly post-resurrection words of Jesus as to the spreading the Gospel to Gentiles. Paul are reportedly received revelation to that end. Also, Paul calls himself a Pharisee.
Danny, the way Paulo acted war far off of being a pharisee. Saducee were a bad reference for everyone, and after the temple was gone, Saducees dissapeared for good. He worked for the temple priests, so how a Pharisee can be working for the temple? About Jesus talking post resurection, its true waht you say, but I mean Jesus in terrenal life(Gospels). Anyway, Jesus talking post resurection was to jews followers too!!! Paulo was a jew, right? There is a tendence to cal Pharisee to every jew back then, even Jesus himself. Josephus, Philo, etc.
I will think twice before calling Josephus, a levite himself, a pharisee, or Paulo, a kind of "religious police" at that time, a Pharisee.. But we cannot discuss about that a lot, since not a lot of historic documents can help us.
Chaim, we all have read the NT. I know that Paul didn't act like a Pharisee. But he asserted himself a Pharisee, son of Pharisees.
How a Pharisee could work for the high priest? C'mon, with the then (and current) corruption a pig could work for a high priest. Besides, if I recall correctly, head of Sanhedrin was a Pharisee, while ha-Nasi was Zaducee.
Midrash asserts Paul a proselyte, converted to marry priest's daughter, whom he was of course refused as a convert. The story isn't credible since Paul would have known he cannot marry into a priestly family.
I don't recall Josephus calling himself a Pharisee. He says he studied all major sects.
Gentlemen, Somehow this left my primary point, which was the generalization of the article. I also find myself feeling as if the world has a tendancy to blame the Jews for every wrong that occurs. I am not one that believes this and I get tired of hearing it recited and seeing it displayed.
James, I perfectly understand your point. Since we agreed with you that a degree of generalization is unavoidable in any discourse, the discussion switched to another interesting point you raised.
Danny, I meant a lot of historians call Josephus a Pharisee. Not Himself, since he cared a lot to name himself Saducee. Do you remember from where you did read The high priest was a Pharisee at that time? Sounds interesting to me… Anyway, as you said, Josephus cites that for 200 years before the temple's fall, Urim and Tumim weren't shining no more. SO that is at least a good point of the High Priest family corruption back then. But I cannot imagine a pharisee working for them, since they developed their own network of sinagogues..
May I suggest that the true root of anti-Semitism is nothing other than rebellion against G-d and His Commandments. It matters little if not every Jew acts in a holy fashion, for his very continued existence is a physical witness to the existence of the G-d of Israel and His Commandments for all mankind. I also think it is at times permitted by HaShem to ensure the continued existence of the Jewish people as a distinct people as opposed to them disappearing through assimilation.
History should have taught us that trying to become like all the Gentiles, as in Germany prior to the Nazis, does not work. Yet we are plagued with so-called leaders in Israel trying to gain favour with the world. This is a major failure of the non religious Left. We need to accept who we are, why we exist and get on with it without worrying about what will the "others" think.
One of my ideas in regards to the Arabs has been their disdain for the fact that they are descendant from a Bastard. Islam fit right in with their desire to be something they weren't and it allowed them to believe that they are more important than others. I agree that the Jews are constant reminder of G-d. This eats at quite a few people.
Arabs see that differently, and consider themselves descendants of the firstborn.
firstborn but still illegitimate son… But what all this has to do with antisemitism? Majority of antisemites do not think twice about all these nuances that you discuss (Paul, Saul, Pharicee…), actually, they do not know anything about it. It's just a general idea of Jewish guilt… for something
LeBron: please danny's post number 10
Another question: How nowadays arabs figure being descendants from Ishmael? Any proof link???
From what I know of Islam, Muslims claim that it was Ishmael instead of Isaac who was almost sacrificed and that Abraham was a Muslim. They distorted the Torah while claiming that it was the Jews who distorted it. This closes the door for any chance of getting them to understand the truth. When one adds the quiet recent Muslim invention of Jerusalem being a Muslim holy site etc., matters only get worse.
Ishmael was blessed before Isaac. The right of the firstborn was his. (according to OT) Why should Arabs then be considered as "bastards" by Jews and Christians? (if that is in fact the implication you are making).
Would not the tradition of those people have concluded Ishmael as legitimate? Abraham had many wives. What about the firstborn of Kenturah? Funny how that "family" of Abraham vanishes from both Jewish and Christian thought. Any explanation?