"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Are you saying that the Jews were not distrusted and vilified because they were Jews, by any other racial groups, prior to Christianity?

Yes.

We know that there was violence against the Jews in the early first century as your Wiki link demonstrated. However, what we do not know is what the average Gentile across the Hellenized world thought about the Jews. Our sources may not be entirely reliable in reflecting the day-to-day contact between Jews and Gentiles. There are both positive and negative comments on Jews in the sources but how do such comments compare to potential collected comments about Egyptians or Syrians? Were Jews a special case or did they fare in much the same way as other Orientals? It seems more than likely that Jews were placed alongside other ethnic groups and only gained special attention when social or political factors gave them unusual prominence.

Were all the references to Egyptians in antiquity collected it is possible we would find a similar variety of comments ranging from interest and respect through to disparaging abuse.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Explain what you mean by that. What do you think makes it meaningfully different?

See my reply above to tabibito

[rogue06]

Yes.

We know that there was violence against the Jews in the early first century as your Wiki link demonstrated. However, what we do not know is what the average Gentile across the Hellenized world thought about the Jews.

We don't need to know "what the average Gentile across the Hellenized world thought about the Jews" to realize that they were being discriminated against because of who they are. Just like we don't need to know what the average white person across the modern western world thought about the blacks to realize that they had been discriminated against. Same with not needing to know what the average German in the 1930s and 40s thought about the Jews to understand that they had been more than discriminated against.

Btw, pagan anti-Semitism dates back to well before the 1st cent (A.D. or even B.C.), with some citing the works of the Egyptian priest Manetho from the 3rd cent. B.C. as an early example. In fact, according to noted Hellenistic scholar Louis Feldman, that after Manetho "the picture usually painted is one of universal and virulent anti-Judaism" [Studies in Hellenistic Judaism Part I page 178].

Moreover, it was the anti-Semitic nature of the edicts of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes that sparked the Maccabean Revolt in the first half of the 2nd cent B.C., again demonstrating that anti-Semitism was around long before Christianity began.

[Gondwanaland]

Yes.

We know that there was violence against the Jews in the early first century as your Wiki link demonstrated. However, what we do not know is what the average Gentile across the Hellenized world thought about the Jews. Our sources may not be entirely reliable in reflecting the day-to-day contact between Jews and Gentiles. There are both positive and negative comments on Jews in the sources but how do such comments compare to potential collected comments about Egyptians or Syrians? Were Jews a special case or did they fare in much the same way as other Orientals? It seems more than likely that Jews were placed alongside other ethnic groups and only gained special attention when social or political factors gave them unusual prominence.

Were all the references to Egyptians in antiquity collected it is possible we would find a similar variety of comments ranging from interest and respect through to disparaging abuse.

None of the above is relevant to the factvof anti-semitism existing pre-Christianity. We don't need to know "what the average Gentile across the Hellenized world thought about the Jews" for us to know that anti-semitism existed and was directly acted on by people of the time, for which there are records.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yes.

We know that there was violence against the Jews in the early first century as your Wiki link demonstrated. However, what we do not know is what the average Gentile across the Hellenized world thought about the Jews. Our sources may not be entirely reliable in reflecting the day-to-day contact between Jews and Gentiles. There are both positive and negative comments on Jews in the sources but how do such comments compare to potential collected comments about Egyptians or Syrians? Were Jews a special case or did they fare in much the same way as other Orientals? It seems more than likely that Jews were placed alongside other ethnic groups and only gained special attention when social or political factors gave them unusual prominence.

Were all the references to Egyptians in antiquity collected it is possible we would find a similar variety of comments ranging from interest and respect through to disparaging abuse.

See, you claimed
"Anti-Semitism as we understand it today did not exist in the ancient world."

But your reply was a bunch of "We don't know"

So you made a statement of fact, and your back-up to that was a bunch of appeals to ignorance.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We don't need to know "what the average Gentile across the Hellenized world thought about the Jews" to realize that they were being discriminated against because of who they are. Just like we don't need to know what the average white person across the modern western world thought about the blacks to realize that they had been discriminated against. Same with not needing to know what the average German in the 1930s and 40s thought about the Jews to understand that they had been more than discriminated against.

Btw, pagan anti-Semitism dates back to well before the 1st cent (A.D. or even B.C.), with some citing the works of the Egyptian priest Manetho from the 3rd cent. B.C. as an early example. In fact, according to noted Hellenistic scholar Louis Feldman, that after Manetho "the picture usually painted is one of universal and virulent anti-Judaism" [Studies in Hellenistic Judaism Part I page 178].

Moreover, it was the anti-Semitic nature of the edicts of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes that sparked the Maccabean Revolt in the first half of the 2nd cent B.C., again demonstrating that anti-Semitism was around long before Christianity began.

So a selected instance premised on one quote from Feldman who was not Hellenistic by the way but was born in Connecticut and which is produced [and cited] in a general Wiki article on the History of Antisemitism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism - see Reference # 4] is your definitive academic source?

Well that's good to know.

I assume you are, of course, familiar with the history of the Hellenisation of ancient near east and Egypt under Alexander of Macedon and the preferential position which the Jews later enjoyed under the Ptolemies which may have accounted for or contributed to the rise of anti-Semitic feelings in Egypt as early as the third century BCE?

As to your comments on Antiochus IV Epiphanes the traditional view that Antiochus's invasion of Jerusalem was prompted by his own anti-Semitic sentiments has been called into question, it seems almost certain that Antiochus himself was not motivated by anything but political factors. Since the Jews had come under Seleucid rule Hellenism had been exerting an increasing influence on the society, and Hellenistic ideas were particularly appealing to the wealthy aristocracy. It was during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes that this Hellenising party within the Jewish community became dominant and secured the control of the High Priesthood in 175 BCE. Political reform was carried through that converted Jerusalem into a Greek style of city that included a gymnasium and an ephebate. Although the Temple-cult and the religious institutions of Judaism were theoretically inviolate these were inevitably indirectly affected. It was opposition from the more orthodox members of the Judaic community that led to disorders and provoked Antiochus to begin his clamp-down which included replacing voluntary Hellenisation with compulsory Hellenisation. However, he went even further and in 167 BCE, dedicated the Temple to Zeus while also and attempting to suppress Judaism entirely by prohibiting both the study and observance of the Law.

Unsurprisingly this eventually led to a full scale revolt.

[tabibito]

Were all the references to Egyptians in antiquity collected it is possible we would find a similar variety of comments ranging from interest and respect through to disparaging abuse.

Even if that panned out, it would do no more than show that Jews were not alone in being subjected to racism. Nor can it be said that blacks alone were singled out for racism into the twentieth century and until the present time. Nor can it be said that whites alone engage in racism. Nor can it be said that whites have been or are exempt from being subjected to racism.

[Gondwanaland]

So a selected instance premised on one quote from Feldman who was not Hellenistic by the way but was born in Connecticut

You're not very bright, are you? That wasn't a statement that he was hellenistic but a statement of what he was a scholar of, you dense little twerp who claims to be a historian.

[tabibito]

So a selected instance premised on one quote from Feldman who was not Hellenistic by the way but was born in Connecticut and which is produced [and cited] in a general Wiki article on the History of Antisemitism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism - see Reference # 4] is your definitive academic source?

Well that's good to know.

I assume you are, of course, familiar with the history of the Hellenisation of ancient near east and Egypt under Alexander of Macedon and the preferential position which the Jews later enjoyed under the Ptolemies which may have accounted for or contributed to the rise of anti-Semitic feelings in Egypt as early as the third century BCE?

As to your comments on Antiochus IV Epiphanes the traditional view that Antiochus's invasion of Jerusalem was prompted by his own anti-Semitic sentiments has been called into question, it seems almost certain that Antiochus himself was not motivated by anything but political factors. Since the Jews had come under Seleucid rule Hellenism had been exerting an increasing influence on the society, and Hellenistic ideas were particularly appealing to the wealthy aristocracy. It was during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes that this Hellenising party within the Jewish community became dominant and secured the control of the High Priesthood in 175 BCE. Political reform was carried through that converted Jerusalem into a Greek style of city that included a gymnasium and an ephebate. Although the Temple-cult and the religious institutions of Judaism were theoretically inviolate these were inevitably indirectly affected. It was opposition from the more orthodox members of the Judaic community that led to disorders and provoked Antiochus to begin his clamp-down which included replacing voluntary Hellenisation with compulsory Hellenisation. However, he went even further and in 167 BCE, dedicated the Temple to Zeus while also and attempting to suppress Judaism entirely by prohibiting both the study and observance of the Law.

Unsurprisingly this eventually led to a full scale revolt.

In short, he attempted to stamp out Judaism.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

None of the above is relevant to the factvof anti-semitism existing pre-Christianity.

You do not want to recognise it but it is highly relevant.

We don't need to know "what the average Gentile across the Hellenized world thought about the Jews"

What an ignorant comment. "We don't need to know" yet you [apparently] claim precisely that

and was directly acted on by people of the time, for which there are records.

As were other groups. The Jews were not singled out as one group for vilification and persecution across the ancient Hellenised world as they were by the later Christian world.

[rogue06]

So a selected instance premised on one quote from Feldman who was not Hellenistic by the way but was born in Connecticut and which is produced [and cited] in a general Wiki article on the History of Antisemitism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism - see Reference # 4] is your definitive academic source?

Indeed Feldman was born in Connecticut which is what you are seeking to use to hand wave him off as an expert.

That's really a new low for you.

And since you have been franticly Googling and trolling Wikipedia I guess it is okay to cite the latter concerning Feldman

Source: Louis Feldman

Louis Harry Feldman (October 29, 1926 – March 25, 2017) was an American professor of classics and literature. He was the Abraham Wouk Family Professor of Classics and Literature at Yeshiva University, the institution at which he taught since 1955.^[1]

Feldman was a scholar of Hellenistic civilization, specifically the works of Josephus Flavius. Feldman's work on Josephus is widely respected by other scholars.^[2][3]


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Hmm. "a scholar of Hellenistic civilization" Sounds like, in spite of being from Connecticut, that he might have a bit more command of the subject than a German hausfrau with delusions of being a professional historian.

Moreover, yet again, here you are engaging in your typical games. You make no attempt to refute the fact that anti-Semitism can be traced for several centuries before the advent of Christianity -- and that shreds your fantasy that anti-Semitism is something the Christians came up with. Instead you dismiss an expert on the topic based upon the fact that he

was not Hellenistic by the way but was born in Connecticut

What's real interesting is that you acknowledge anti-Semitism occurring long before Christianity first arose when you wrote

the traditional view that Antiochus's invasion of Jerusalem was prompted by his own anti-Semitic sentiments has been called into question

but have chosen to disregard the evidence of pre-Christian anti-Semitism so that you could push your claim that anti-Semitism originated with Christianity.

That's being incredibly intentionally dishonest.

Of course, there is the chance that you just ran across that bit during your Googling in which case you're just an ignorant poser.

[rogue06]

You're not very bright, are you? That wasn't a statement that he was hellenistic but a statement of what he was a scholar of, you dense little twerp who claims to be a historian.

That she has summarily dismissed people far more qualified to speak on a subject than she is for an absurd reason is par for the course. But I think declaring that because he isn't a Hellenist but was born in Connecticut means that she knows more than he does has to be about the most imbecilic rationalization she has come up with to date.

[Cow Poke]

That she has summarily dismissed people far more qualified to speak on a subject than she is for an absurd reason is par for the course. But I think declaring that because he isn't a Hellenist but was born in Connecticut means that she knows more than he does has to be about the most imbecilic rationalization she has come up with to date.

She is, after all, the brightest bulb in the toaster.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Even if that panned out, it would do no more than show that Jews were not alone in being subjected to racism. Nor can it be said that blacks alone were singled out for racism into the twentieth century and until the present time. Nor can it be said that whites alone engage in racism. Nor can it be said that whites have been or are exempt from being subjected to racism.

The difference between Roman society and later Christian societies is that while racism clearly existed in the Roman world and no doubt some people were dreadfully so, it was not enshrined in societal mores to prevent certain races or peoples from achieving status or position.

For example, what do you think would be the likelihood for a mixed heritage middle class Frenchman from the French colonies in north Africa in the late 19th century rising through the French army and finally becoming President?

Or what odds would you give a south Asian from the Raj coming to England, getting elected as an MP, and eventually becoming Prime Minister of late Victorian England?

[Cow Poke]

The difference between Roman society and later Christian societies is that while racism clearly existed in the Roman world and no doubt some people were dreadfully so, it was not enshrined in societal mores to prevent certain races or peoples from achieving status or position.

That reads like a sentence typed by somebody trying to sound knowledgeable on something they know little about, while writing a paper for a sociology class.