I can’t speak to what the average jew in the biblical or medieval period said about gentiles, but I can speak from my own experience growing up in a Conservative jewish home, and living in Israel for a year with my family. I can tell you that no jew I’ve encountered, of any age, ever expressed such sentiments to me. — Joshs

I can easily imagine that. But remember: the topic is the origin of anti-Semitism. You're going to have to dig into history to dredge that up. To state the obvious, anti-Semitism starts with the fact that Jews remained separate. Some Jews ditched their Jewishness and became Christian, but if you're Jewish, it means your ancestors embraced being a stranger in a strange land, so to speak. Pretty much the same thing happened to them everywhere they went, but each case was shaped by local stresses. For instance, the Germans wanted to become a nation-state like England and France, but their fragmentation was an obstacle. The worked to try to assimilate everybody into a single identity, but with limited success. One group they had absolutely no success with was Jews. Jews were an obstacle to their goals. In each case where Jews were persecuted, you have to sort through the events to discover why their separateness ended up making them victims this time around.

Do religious jews believe their faith offers them a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics which is preferable to that of other religions? I would hope so. Otherwise, why bother to remain within the faith? — Joshs

The majority of Jews for the last 2000 years would say they adhered to their faith because the Torah explicitly condemns straying from the faith. For these Jews, other religions are not alternate paths to God. They're all paths to the Devil. The gods of other religions are false gods, and it's evil to worship them. There's nothing anti-Semitic about commenting on this. It's traditional Judaism. Look into it.

But you seem to have a stronger notion of ‘superior’ in mind that you may have to spell out for me. — Joshs

No, it's just that Jews didn't traditionally separate themselves from their faith. Jewish was pervasively who they were, not just a religion they had.

They [the "Germans"] worked to try to assimilate everybody into a single identity, but with limited success. One group they had absolutely no success with was Jews. Jews were an obstacle to their goals. In each case where Jews were persecuted, you have to sort through the events to discover why their separateness ended up making them victims this time around. — frank

You're fond of taking the high ground and lecturing people about what they have to do to know the stuff that you know, but your posts show very little evidence of having a clue about anything, to be frank.

You're fond of taking the high ground and lecturing people about what they have to do to know the stuff that you know, but your posts show very little evidence of having a clue about anything, to be frank. — Jamal

Was there something specific you disagreed with?

The majority of Jews for the last 2000 years would say they adhered to their faith because the Torah explicitly condemns straying from the faith. For these Jews, other religions are not alternate paths to God. They're all paths to the Devil. The gods of other religions are false gods, and it's evil to worship them. There's nothing anti-Semitic about commenting on this. It's traditional Judaism. Look into it. — frank

Do you know anything about the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist denominations of Judaism? Within these theologies, there are no revealed truths, no miracles, only endless exegesis and interpretation. My father’s touchstone for his understanding of the application of jewish law was the Rationalism of Maimonides. Given that 90% of American jews adhere to one of these denominations rather than Orthodox Judaism ( what you call ‘traditional’ judaism’), your emphasis on strict adherence to law is foreign to the practice of the vast majority of American jews.

I know. Likewise, progressive American Christianity is fairly interfaith.

↪Joshs
I know. Likewise, progressive American Christianity is fairly interfaith — frank

Would you agree that the varieties of contemporary anti-semitism expressed by the likes of Henry Ford, Heidegger, Hamas, Charles Lindburgh, Kanye West and Louis Farrakhan have less to do with the judaism of the middle ages than with their interpretation of the motives and practices of the modern world Jewish community?

Would you agree that the varieties of contemporary anti-semitism expressed by the likes of Henry Ford, Heidegger, Hamas, Charles Lindburgh, Kanye West and Louis Farrakhan have less to do with the judaism of the middle ages than with their interpretation of the motives and practices of the modern world Jewish community? — Joshs

Sure. I was trying to explain earlier that anti-Semitism has to be understood with reference to the problems and stressors of the times in which individual cases of it appear.

Right, but the actual teachings of Jesus are more against the Sadducees' formalism than the Pharisees. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess Jesus's teachings could be compared and contrasted with both groups. When I read the gospels I see Jesus primarily critiquing Pharisaic materialism. A popular Pharisaic idea was basically to try to balance one's material life with one's religious obligations. One foot in the material, one foot in the divine. The Pharisees have a civilization to run. The differences are many. The Pharisees favor long-term planning, Jesus says do not worry about tomorrow. Pharisees laud grey hair as a sign of wisdom; Jesus elevates the role of the child. Jesus and the Sadducees certainly disagree on a variety of issues, but imho its his disagreements with the Pharisees that are the most interesting and pertinent. It is in his disagreements with the Pharisees that his radicalness is revealed.

The NT certainly motivated anti-Semitism at times, but so did the OT. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that. I just find the writers of the NT in their descriptions will take certain liberties. For instance the way they describe the Pharisees in Luke 16 in the parable of the shrewd manager. "The Pharisees, who love money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus." There's the teachings of Jesus and then there's the accounts of the disciples/writers.

Thank you for the very informative post BTW.

I just haven't heard this idea flushed out) despite the bulk of Jesus's disputes/criticisms being with the Pharisees. — BitconnectCarlos

That’s because you are taking the Gospels as gospel. Not a good move if you are approaching as critical historian. Depending on your interpretation, Jesus seems to have been quite conversant and possibly somewhat educated in a Hillel Pharisee milieu for much of his halachic interpretation of Torah law. When “condemning” Pharisees, it would be then as one from the inside and possibly contra the Shammaite Pharisees. My more speculative interpretation would be that he was a trained Hillelite Pharisee who later became an apocalyptic Jew as influenced by Essenic John the Baptist. I don’t buy the “merely a peasant” portrayal. He may have been of am ha-aretz tekton background, but clearly somewhere became relatively educated in Pharisee interpretations of Jewish law. His brother James headed this hybrid Pharisee/Essene sect, but the group’s fundamental nature changed amongst the group’s diaspora adherents with the forceful evangelizing of Paul and his interpretations of Jesus as the “Christ”. Other strains like the Johannite strain that conceived of Jesus as the pre-existing Logos combined Greek/Platonic elements as well. By this time, Jesus the itinerant Pharisee/Essenic Jew became something much different in these diaspora communities and those became the gentile/Pauline churches that became Christianity. The original Jamesian sect died out several hundred years later in the Levant.

We should be clear that antisemitism is a 19th century concoction, that grew in an environment where 'race' was a hot topic, hence, in part, Nietzsche's preoccupation with it. Few people note that Arabs, among others, are 'semites' on a race-based division of the world's peoples; the term has become synonymous with Jewry.

I was brought up by anti-Jewish parents. My Dad taught me unpleasant rhymes about greedy Jews; my Mum said the people who'd moved in down the street were 'Very nice people. Jews, you know.'

I do feel some personal grounding is needed in debating 'antisemitism'. A lot of the debate here has been very theoretical. As it happened, for me, loads of my schoolmates, including the arty ones I got on with, were Jewish and I emerged into adulthood without prejudice, indeed a bit pro-Jewish, and anti-racist in general, as far as I can tell. But those rhymes and comments of my parents live forever in me. I can't wipe my memory. There is something atavistic about prejudice, to find emotional and intellectual explanations for life's difficulties in the Other, and Jews are Other everywhere they have gone - yet have resolutely survived.

Now Zionists among Jewry have established a state where every non-Jew is Other. To me this is both a remarkable triumph over adversity, and once a two-state solution became impossible, a never-ending tragedy. Leaders squirm over the difficulties this gives rise to: in my native UK the opposition party leader can't bring himself to condemn what I think of as vile Israeli actions (in response to vile Hamas actions); it seems like only the Irish government in the EU dissents from an EU pro-Israeli stance; but the ordinary human sympathies of Brits, Irish and Europeans are, as far as I can see, more with the helpless Palestinians. Awfully, under these sympathies the atavism of anti-Jewishness bubbles up. I just try to stay reasonable. What more can be done?

Do you think that there is an anti-Jewish bias in Europe stemming from pre-Holocaust ideas of Jewry that is not present in newer Western nation like the US? There are certainly hate groups everywhere but I am wondering if geography influences these trends.

Certainly as "official" policy, Germany has to show "atonement" of some sort and so has bent over backwards to show their sordid history in the 30s and 40s. Other countries had various attitudes and memorials and outreaches about the atrocities. But this is official government gestures, I wonder if there are just ancient hatreds as you describe that get passed down and perpetuated when discussing Jews as a group (not necessarily individuals...and your example was a really good one can be a fan individually and not as a group). It's more of a "genteel" anti-semetism that I am speaking.

↪mcdoodle
Do you think that there is an anti-Jewish bias in Europe stemming from pre-Holocaust ideas of Jewry that is not present in newer Western nation like the US? There are certainly hate groups everywhere but I am wondering if geography influences these trends — schopenhauer1

Europeans brought their prejudices with them when they emigrated to America. Not just anti-semitism ( there were many prominent anti-semites, such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindburgh) but anti-catholicism, and conflict among catholic ethnicities. My grandmother remembered seeing signs posting ‘No jews, catholic or dogs’.
Major cities like New York, Chicago and Boston were divided up into fiefdoms bounded by major streets and centered around local parishes. You ventured beyond your group’s neighborhood at the risk of a beating. This faded by the 1960’s ( with the exception of prejudice against people of color) with the flight to suburbia and the integration of public and private institutions.

I think the key tends mitigating against separatism
are urbanization, secularization, inter-marriage
and population diversification.

Europeans brought their prejudices with them when they emigrated to America. Not just anti-semitism ( there were many prominent anti-semites, such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindburgh) but anti-catholicism, and conflict among catholic ethnicities. My grandmother remembered seeing signs posting ‘No jews, catholic or dogs’.
Major cities like New York, Chicago and Boston were divided up into fiefdoms bounded by major streets and centered around local parishes. You ventured beyond your group’s neighborhood at the risk of a beating. This faded by the 1960’s ( with the exception of prejudice against people of color) with the flight to suburbia and the integration of public and private institutions. — Joshs

True true. Good points. It all sucks, huh?

I was thinking more this:

On August 18, 1790, congregants of the Touro Synagogue of Newport, Rhode Island, warmly welcomed George Washington to both their place of worship and their city. Washington’s letter of response to the synagogue, delivered on the same day, has become famous for reinforcing the ideal of religious liberty in American life. Washington promised the synagogue more than mere religious tolerance, explaining that "It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." The letter continued with the promise that "the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."1

Washington asserted that every religious community in the United States would enjoy freedom of worship without fear of interference by the government. Washington had already developed a strong reputation for upholding ideals of religious liberty before writing the Touro letter. As a result, his commitment to freedom of practice prompted other religious communities to seek his affirmation. In May 1790, for example, a Jewish congregation in Savannah, Georgia, wrote to Washington with strong praise: "Your unexampled liberality and extensive philanthropy have dispelled that cloud of bigotry and superstition which has long, as a veil, shaded religion . . . enfranchised us with all the priveleges and immunities of free citizens, and initiated us into the grand mass of legislative mechanism."2 — Mount Vernon

and also:

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy. — archives

But that is more official government, not daily life and general attitudes per se. But the positions have been nuanced and changing over the years I am sure.

<>

As an ex-Christian, I've done a fair bit of research into the history of Christianity and Judaism, but my take on this question is largely informed by Joseph Atwill's book "Caesar's Messiah", which I think is an incredibly compelling and well-researched analysis of the origin of the New Testament.

With that disclosure, my current understanding is that the vast majority of modern anti-semitism traces its origins back to the New Testament itself, which has many denunciations of Judaism, mostly allegorical, but some quite explicit. The reason I mention Joseph Atwill above is that his research has thoroughly convinced me that the New Testament was written by a small network of scholars of Judaism who were loyal to the Flavian family of Roman emperors. This hypothesis is also reinforced by the vastly different ideologies embodied by the contemporary Judaic messianic literature found in the Dead Sea scrolls (which escaped Roman censorship) that were militaristically anti-authoritarian - which makes sense because Judea was actively subjugated by the Roman empire at the time - as opposed to the New Testament, which is incredibly deferential to authority and pacifistic.

The New Testament was created to exploit existing Judaic religious beliefs, turning them into tools to encourage compliance with Roman subjugation and encourage animosity against Judaic sects (especially messianic movements) that were not as pro-Roman as early Christianity.

Therefore the Christian passages describing Judaism as a tree that no longer bears fruit and needs to be uprooted, or as a shepherd who has started leading his flock over a cliff, or the passages blaming Jews for the death of Christ, and exonerating the Romans who - explicitly - were the actual killers in those very passages.

Christianity was invented to quell the anti-imperialism of pre-Rabbinic Judaism. And you can't really supplant an existing belief system without condemning it, and that is exactly what the New Testament did, and still does. This is the reason that virtually all anti-semitic arguments (all that I've seen, anyway) either directly originate from the New Testament, or mirror its passages in some way.

IIRC, the Roman Empire, beginning(?) in the 1st century BCE and culminating in the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church and its 4th century CE canonical bible, had manufactured world-historical 'Jew-hatred'. This quintessentially European fetish comes down the millennia to us belated, hyper-Europeanized folk socio-culturally internalized as antisemitism – perhaps the most prevalent, viciously paranoiac conspiracy theory on the planet – for which Jews themselves are blamed even by so-called "philosophers" (here on display in many posts). Heil Effin' Heidegger! :shade:

Do you think that there is an anti-Jewish bias in Europe stemming from pre-Holocaust ideas of Jewry that is not present in newer Western nation like the US? There are certainly hate groups everywhere but I am wondering if geography influences these trends — schopenhauer1

I'm inclined to think, as a subsequent poster says, that people carry their prejudices with them when they migrate. One reason I responded with a personal story here is that there does tend to be a lot of sometimes quite arcane debate about how other people's prejudices arose over the centuries, but not a lot of confrontation of one's own prejudices.

In Europe the picture is patchy. Germany may seem nowadays upfront in its acknowledgement of Holocaust responsibility, but it took nearly 20 years before such acknowledgement began in a serious way. Some figures of the central European right, e.g. in Poland, tend to mitigate their own countries' role in antisemitic murders 1933-45.

It doesn't look like there was ever that many Jewish people in that region until Britain gave them Israel. — TiredThinker

There was a moderate increase in the Jewish population of 'Palestine' in the late 19th century, some call it 'the first Aliyah'. Then many thousands came from the Russian Empire in the 1900's; and after the First World War many more arrived. The British did not 'give' Israel to Jewish settlers. Rather, the British helped create the tragedy of Palestine/Israel in 1914-20: they first promised support for a single Arab state; they reneged on that with the Sykes-Picot deal of 1916 which carved up Arabia among the Imperial powers, should the allies defeat the Ottomans; they then in 1917 supported the Balfour declaration of a Jewish 'homeland', on condition that the rights of Palestinian Arabs were respected. Mutual contradictions abound in these stances. Once the Ottomans were defeated, the League of nations, formed after the war, granted the 'mandate' over Palestine to Britain, lasting until 1948 (and also the 'mandate' over Transjordan, which became independent in 1946).

It's something of a forgotten war, in 1916-18: British, French and Italians, in alliance with local Arab forces, fought for Arabia against the Ottomans. 50,000 Brits (including Empire forces) died and 500,000 were injured. Those who remember this war already know the name of Gaza: it was the site of two Ottoman victories in 1917. One of my great uncles came home from there permanently mad; another later became a British Palestine policeman, which family lore says he found an impossible job because Britain tried to face in several directions at once.

When did some groups start disliking or hating Jewish people? Is there anything particular about their lifestyles that is unappealing? And why do most religions not have a word for anti(that religion)? There aren't actually that many Jewish people in the world on a whole. I don't know what threat some people see. — TiredThinker

Dumb religions. In this case Christianity because a Jew betrayed Jesus. So Christians thought all Jews were evil sons of bitches and were excluded from everything and pushed into ghettos, except the one thing Christians weren't allowed to: lend money!

So Jews got in the lending game and since they were the only ones they cornered the market and did rather well. The rulers of the country saw they were getting rich and started to tax them. So the Jews raised their rates, and the rulers raised their taxes. That went on until the borrowers started to default and the "evil greedy Jew" charicature was born because understandably they'd rather squeeze a borrower than lose their heads for not paying taxes. During these centuries every country thought they had a Jew problem so they were kicked around all the time.

The Balfour declaration was the UK's solution to their Jew problem. Hitler tried to kill them all. Eastern Europe had their pogroms in more or less the same time period.

That's in a nutshell the historic perspective. Of course, the insistence of Israel as the nation state for Jews and how Israel treats Palestinians is definitely giving rise to a new wave of anti-semitism.

Welcome and interesting first post. I'm aware of the passages in the Bible but wasn't aware of the likely/possible relation to the political struggles in the area and the Romans you described.

That’s because you are taking the Gospels as gospel. Not a good move if you are approaching as critical historian. Depending on your interpretation, Jesus seems to have been quite conversant and possibly somewhat educated in a Hillel Pharisee milieu for much of his halachic interpretation of Torah law. When “condemning” Pharisees, it would be then as one from the inside and possibly contra the Shammaite Pharisees. My more speculative interpretation would be that he was a trained Hillelite Pharisee who later became an apocalyptic Jew as influenced by Essenic John the Baptist. I don’t buy the “merely a peasant” portrayal. He may have been of am ha-aretz tekton background, but clearly somewhere became relatively educated in Pharisee interpretations of Jewish law. His brother James headed this hybrid Pharisee/Essene sect, but the group’s fundamental nature changed amongst the group’s diaspora adherents with the forceful evangelizing of Paul and his interpretations of Jesus as the “Christ”. Other strains like the Johannite strain that conceived of Jesus as the pre-existing Logos combined Greek/Platonic elements as well. By this time, Jesus the itinerant Pharisee/Essenic Jew became something much different in these diaspora communities and those became the gentile/Pauline churches that became Christianity. The original Jamesian sect died out several hundred years later in the Levant. — schopenhauer1

I think it's plausible Jesus was educated in the Jewish educational system. Teachings such as "love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" cannot be found in Hillel or Shammai. His views on the Sabbath, I believe, place him well outside of Jewish tradition. But for sure some of his views do have echoes in the Talmud. I also see the influence of the Essenes in Jesus and of course John the Baptist; I believe a common view among the two groups is to never swear a vow to heaven. My own personal Jesus is more along the lines of Mark/Matthew. I also find Jesus terrifying. He assumes a greater degree of certainty and authority than the Pharisees.

Jesus was educated in the Jewish educational system. — BitconnectCarlos

:lol: This is very much an anachronism. Like the rest of the ancient world a large percentage of Judean/Galilean Jews were illiterate. And I am willing to say Jesus was also illiterate and that almost every portrayal of him is basically propaganda, but I do think there is a historical person in the trappings that the New Testament writers wanted to portray him as. That being said, I think that is onto something. I have heard of the Flavian theory, and though I don't necessarily buy it completely, I think there is definitely moves (post-Pauline/Gentile church formation) to portray Jesus in a certain newly-created theological light. That being said, in my own hermeneutics, I like to use the "embarrassment criteria", that is to say, "What looks embarrassing to a Pauline community". These kind of glaring discrepancies with Pauline theology that could not be written off so early, and were still included, reveal perhaps the "real" historical character rather than the caricature of him. That is to say, there are a decent amount of quotes attributed to Jesus on Jewish Law that an uneducated am ha-aretz (person of the land/peasant/uneducated Jew) would likely not understand. There was no universal "Yeshiva" system or the kind of educational emphasis on minutia of Mosaic law, as in the post-Temple Rabbinic Judaism. Rather, one would most likely have deep familiarity with Pharisee-style commentary. There are several books on this, as well as tons of scholarly articles regarding how his interpretation of Law can be construed as a kind of Pharisee.

I do think that it was more like a "Hillel with urgency" approach to law, combining the more lenient views of Halacha of the School of Hillel (he was still around when Jesus was born, but his sect became the major force in Pharisee thought), with Essenic ideas of the End Times, which clearly he seemed to move towards with his encounter with John the Baptist's group. Even his "condemning of the Pharisees" can be found in the Talmud (which has strands of earlier Pharisee thought), such as this:

This excerpt from rabbinic literature (Babylonian Talmud, Sota 22b - Soncino translation) describes seven types of Pharisees (Aram. פרושין ; parushin - abstentious people). Some are under the impression that the rabbis who wrote the Talmud were Pharisees. That is not exactly the case, as this passage clearly illustrates that they have no problem criticizing the Pharisees, in some ways with even harsher words than Jesus in Matthew 23. The rabbis quoted here lived in the late 3rd century CE. Explanatory notes in square brackets are mine.

"Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the shikmi Pharisee, the nikpi Pharisee, the kizai Pharisee, the 'pestle' Pharisee, the Pharisee [who constantly exclaims] 'What is my duty that I may perform it?', the Pharisee from love [of God] and the Pharisee from fear. 1. The shikmi Pharisee — he is one who performs the action of Shechem [shechem = shoulder, i.e., the one who carried his deeds on his shoulder for everyone to see]. 2. The nikpi Pharisee — he is one who knocks his feet together [i.e., finds excuses to delay and not to do good deeds]. 3. The kizai Pharisee — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He is one who makes his blood to flow against walls [walks into the wall to avoid looking atcontact with a woman].

4. The 'pestle' Pharisee — Rabbah b. Shila said: His head is bowed like a pestle in a mortar. [displays humility constantly] 5. The Pharisee who constantly exclaims 'What is my duty that I may perform it?' — but that is a virtue! — Nay, what he says is, 'What further duty is for me that I may perform it?' [constantly reckoning good deeds vs. bad ones]. 6 & 7 The Pharisee from love [serves God out of love] and the Pharisee from fear [serves God out of fear of punishment].

Abaye and Raba said to the tanna [who was reciting this passage], Do not mention 'the Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear'; for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should always engage himself in Torah and the commandments even though it be not for their own sake, because from [engaging in them] not for their own sake, he will come [to engage in them] for their own sake. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is hidden is hidden, and what is revealed is revealed; the Great Tribunal will exact punishment from those who rub themselves against the walls. King Jannai said to his wife', 'Fear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees but the hypocrites (הצבועין) who are the Pharisees [present themselves as such]; because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri (Num. 25:11ff) but they expect a reward like Phineas'" (Babylonian Talmud, Sota 22b) — Talmud

This seems to be an internal debate, not external.

Philo Judaeus, a Jewish Plantonist was the first to synthesize faith with reason creating the Logos philosophy, which is responsible for the Evangel of John. Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. — Vaskane

I read about him. Fascinating guy.

If I had to speculate, I would suggest that the language and the Book were central along with a rare tradition of universal learning, (hence 'argumentative'?) aided by a tribal religion with strict rules about marriage and something of an obsession with lineage. — unenlightened

I do think the answer lies in a sociological analysis. Jews are unusual in that they half-way assimilate into the greater culture. They don't remain so insular that they avoid all economic or social interaction with their neighbors, but they do remain seperate in many ways dictated by their religious beliefs. An Orthodox Jew (which really describes all Jews not too long ago) would not eat with non-Jews (because of the rules of keeping Kosher), they would not marry non-Jews, they would only send their children to Jewish schools, and they would live in communities surrounding the local synaguage because they had to be within walking distance (due to rules of keeping the sabbath). None of these decisions were based upon prejudice toward the greater community, but it was due to adhering to their rules.

Add in also the Jews had their own culture that involved distinct dress, distinct language, distinct food, songs, and much else.

Despite these differences, they did involve themselves in commerce, were educated, and could be vocal. And so that made some to think them parasitic or distrusted and that made them subject to scape goating.

The flip side of this is that it made them survive much longer than most, if not all, other sub-groups. It also resulted in a certain amount of disproportionate economic and educational success.

What you see in Jewish culture often reminds me of what you see in the US with regard to recent immigrant cultures, especially Indian and Asian ones. They tend to be insular as well, marry only within, heavily value education, but they still are heavily involved in commerce and that results in economic success. In fact, I had a Asian client who I told that I was Jewish and he said "Oh, you do things like us."

Once a Jew has accepted the divine revelation of Jesus Christ he has placed himself outside of Judaism. — BitconnectCarlos

He'd still be a Jew though, just with really strange beliefs.

Well the OP inquires about the "origin" of antisemitism, which predates Modern community behavior by millenia. Though kudos to you for not a bad review of some reasons for it's perpetuation.

In my opinion, the origin lies closer to the Jewish rules prohibiting usury (as was common in antiquity)... BUT only to others Jews, ie allowing (encouraging?) usury upon Gentiles.

Usury was not permitted to Christians. Jews were outside that legal system.

Exactly, thus the desperate went outside the system (just like now).

It was the Christians desperate for alternatives along with excluding a group that could help them as much as anything.

But by the 1500s the Italians provided Europe with banking to finance wars and what not.

I think the stereotype of the money-minded Jew comes from the fact that they were usually wealthier (and more educated) than the local peasants. Envy, basically.

This is very much an anachronism. Like the rest of the ancient world a large percentage of Judean/Galilean Jews were illiterate. And I am willing to say Jesus was also illiterate and that almost every portrayal of him is basically propaganda, but I do think there is a historical person in the trappings that the New Testament writers wanted to portray him as. — schopenhauer1

Let's say then "educated in the Jewish tradition" - such a statement seems self-evident to me as Jesus is able to cite Scripture 78 times and draws from a wide variety of the books. Luke 4 describes Jesus reading from a scroll. I don't particularly doubt Jesus's literacy. Amos, a shepherd, was literate and wrote in the 8th century BC. I believe there's a tradition of literacy in Jewish culture. I would also question whether Jesus was a peasant and if he was not that would have raised his prospects of being literate. In any case, I don't find it that far fetched that he was literate.

EDIT: After further research I am less certain in my position. Jesus may have been illiterate. Chris Keith's "Jesus's literacy" concludes that Jesus was unlikely to have been literate. In the gospels, however, Jesus is not omniscient. Scholarship seems divided on this.

here was no universal "Yeshiva" system or the kind of educational emphasis on minutia of Mosaic law, as in the post-Temple Rabbinic Judaism — schopenhauer1

:up:

This seems to be an internal debate, not external. — schopenhauer1

It's internal in the sense that Jesus is a Jew criticizing other Jews. I do believe Jesus & followers were originally a break-away sect of Judaism. Yet IMHO his teachings as presented in the gospels are a different animal than what one would find with Hillel or Shammai, although I'm not well read on either of these two.

I do think that it was more like a "Hillel with urgency" approach to law, combining the more lenient views of Halacha of the School of Hillel — schopenhauer1

Jesus is stricter on some things (e.g. monitoring one's thoughts and eye contact) and looser on others (shabbat restrictions, hand washing.)