Антисемитизм в Новом Завете: Исторические корни и современные дискуссии.

Christian views of Judaism in the New Testament
Antisemitism and the New Testament is the discussion of how Christian 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. 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. 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. According to Timothy Johnson, mutual slandering among competing sects was quite strong in the period when these works were composed. 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".

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:
The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus – as such they are guilty of deicide. The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus. Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for gentiles instead. The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness and now, by virtue of a New Covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God." The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God. The Jewish Bible contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible. By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith. Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism. Christianity emphasizes love, while Judaism stands for justice and a God of wrath. Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees). 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. 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), Norman A. Beck (Texas Lutheran College), and Michael Berenbaum (Georgetown University).

There are some verses in the New Testament that describe Jews in a positive way, attributing to them salvation or divine love. According to the New Testament Gospels, Jesus, on his fateful entry into Jerusalem before Passover, was received by a great crowd of people. Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin. After the trial, Jesus was handed over to Pontius Pilate, who duly tried him again and, at the urging of the people, had him crucified. The New Testament records that Jesus' disciple Judas Iscariot, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate along with Roman forces and the leaders and people of Jerusalem were (to varying degrees) responsible for the death of Jesus.

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:
Although Mark depicts all of the Jewish groups united in their opposition to Jesus, his passion narratives are not "overtly" anti Jewish, since they can be interpreted as falling within the range of "acceptable" intra Jewish disputes. To some readers, the "cleansing of the Temple" scene (11:15 19) framed by the "withered fig tree" pericopes confirms God's judgment against the Jews and their Temple. Most likely, however, the story explains for this small sect of Jesus followers that survived the Roman Jewish War why God permitted the destruction of the Temple. It is an in house interpretation and, therefore, not anti Jewish. Likewise, the parable of the vineyard (12:1 12), by which the traditional allegorical interpretation casts the tenants as the Jews, the murdered heir as Jesus, and the owner as God, must be set within the context of an intra Jewish dispute.

In the Gospel of John, the word Ἰουδαῖοι, or the Jews, is used 63 times, in a hostile sense 31 times, and no distinctions are made between Jewish groups. The Sadducees, for example, prominent elsewhere, are not distinguished. The enemies of Jesus are described collectively as "the Jews", in contradistinction to the other evangelists, who do not generally ascribe to "the Jews" 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. 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. In several places, John's gospel also associates "the Jews" with darkness and with the devil. In John 8:37 39; 44–47, Jesus says, speaking to a group of Pharisees:
I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God. Although it has been said that the modern consensus is that the term Ioudaioi (Jews) in John refers exclusively to religious authorities, the basis for this statement has been challenged and John's use of the term Jews remains a complex and debated area of biblical scholarship. New Testament scholar J. G. Dunn writes:
The Fourth Evangelist is still operating within a context of intra Jewish factional dispute, although the boundaries and definitions themselves are part of that dispute. It is clear beyond doubt that once the Fourth Gospel is removed from that context, and the constraints of that context, it was all too easily read as an anti Jewish polemic and became a tool of anti semitism. But it is highly questionable whether the Fourth Evangelist himself can fairly be indicted for either anti Judaism or anti semitism. 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. For example, Messianic Bibles, as well as the Jesus Seminar, often translate this as "Judeans", i. e. residents of Judea, in contrast to residents of Galilee.

Successive generations of Christians read in the Gospel of John the collective guilt of Jews, universally and in all generations, in the death of Christ. John's use of the collective expression "the Jews" is likely explained by the historical circumstances and audience for which he wrote. With the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Jewish priesthood, and thus the class of the Sadducees was massacred and thus ceased to exist, due to its role in the First Jewish–Roman War. As John wrote his Gospel after these events, for a gentile audience, he spoke generically of Jews, rather than specifying a group within Judaism that no longer existed and that would have been unfamiliar to his readers.

Most scholars consider the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written for Christians who were tempted to return to Judaism. Lillian Freudmann thinks that it in trying to argue the superiority of Christianity to Judaism, it twisted Old Testament passages in a way that transmitted an anti Torah antisemitism. John Gager reads it as a polemic against Judaism, not the Jewish people, and regards it as the most important anti Judaizing text of early Christianity. Samuel Sandmel says that rather than vilifying Judaism, or the Jews of that age, the Epistle to the Hebrews is an argument for the supersessionist notion that Christianity is the pinnacle of ancient Judaism. William L. Lane dismissed the idea that it contains an anti Judaic polemic, its primary concern being simply to say that the Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled. Those who see in its discontinuities antisemitism are wrong William Hagner said: there may be anti Judaism, but no antagonism for Jews. While it promotes supersessionism it venerates the Hebrew saints, for Donald Bloesch, and therefore what it is exhorting is the replacement of Jewish institutions, not Jews. For Timothy Johnson, Christianity had to struggle to survive amid a majority of sects that were not Messianic, and whatever slander there is, is to be understood as the rhetoric of a marginal group against the majority of Jews. Such rhetorical vehemence was common in antiquity in religious and philosophical disputes.

A. Roy Eckardt, a writer in the field of Jewish Christian relations, said that the foundation of antisemitism and responsibility for the Holocaust lies ultimately in the New Testament. Eckardt insisted that Christian repentance must include a reexamination of basic theological attitudes toward Jews and the New Testament in order to deal effectively with antisemitism. Other historians, such as Richard Steigmann Gall, have said that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it. According to Louis Feldman, the term "antisemitism" is an "absurdity which the Jews took over from the Germans." He thinks the proper term is anti Judaism. The distinction between anti Judaism and antisemitism is often made, or challenged, with regard to early Christian hostility to Jews: some, notably Gavin I. Langmuir, prefer anti Judaism, which implies a theological enmity. They say that the concept of antisemitism "makes little sense" in the nascent days of the Christian religion and that it would not emerge until later. In this context, the term antisemitism implies the secular biological race theories of modern times. Peter Schäfer prefers the word Judaeophobia for pagan hostility to Jews, but considers the word antisemitism, even if anachronistic, synonymous with this term, while adding that Christian anti Judaism eventually was crucial to what later became antisemitism. Dunn says that the various New Testament expressions of anger and hurt by a minority puzzled by the refusal of a majority to accept their claims about Jesus the Jew reflect inner tensions between Jewish communities not yet unified by rabbinical Judaism, and a Christianity not yet detached from Judaism. The Greek word Ioudaioi used throughout the New Testament could refer either to Jews or, more restrictively, to Judeans alone.