At the risk of intruding where I probably don't belong, let me respectfully
ask if your idea that hatred of Jews (never mind distinctions between
anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, which sides committed which and how many  and
what degrees of atrocities, etc.) in 350 AD and environs is so different as to
causes, effects, techniques, etc., from that of 1945 and environs as to be
incomparable, because of the risk or commission of anachronism?  Also, don't you
think that people who have discussed and relayed texts of and information based
on the Fathers of the Church, and still do, have had and still do have effects
on people, including the possibility of transmitting or fostering hatred of
Jews?

   I respectfully suggest that not even Saints were perfect beings.  If St John
Chrysostom fostered hatred of Jews, this need not, I think, detract from his
good qualities and actions.

   On the other hand, as an outsider to both the Christian and Jewish religions,
let me observe that one can find Jews corresponding, roughly speaking, to St
John Chryostom, e.g., noted rabbis, who have fostered and still foster hatred of
Christians.  Analogously, this need not detract from such a person's good
contributions.

   Hatred of members of one religion by members of another religion can be found
in all religious communities, don't you agree?  Hatred of members of a great
many kinds of groups of humans by members of other kinds of groups of humans can
be found in all times and places, right?  Does this have anything to do with
what theologians call original sin?  If not, I think it should have.   (Aren't
even Saints subject to the consequences of original sin?)

   A fundamental issue in this discussion is, to my mind, to what degree is
hatred of one such group by another to be tolerated or fostered or endured or
excused, be it in the long past or a short past or right now?  And what should
and can be done about such hatred?  It's easy to say we should love one another,
but evidently difficult for most of us to do so in all cases.  There is, of
course, the prevalence of loving one another in principle, but failing to do so
in practice.  Is it ever a good thing to hate this or that individual?  Or to
hate this or that group of humans?  Should we draw up openly criteria for just
and unjust hatred, as has been done on occasion for wars?

   Was the hatred or fostering of hatred apparently evidenced by St. John
Chrysostom toward many Jews, or if you like his vigorous defense of aspects of
Christianity (as he understood them) in the face of aspects of Judaism (as he
understood them), a just hatred, or a just defense?  Was it perhaps justified
because the Jews were a threat to true religion as St John Chrysostom conceived
ot it?  Did some Jews (early on, I suppose one should say, some *other* Jews who
were not attracted to or accepting of Jewish doctrines and practices which later
evolved into Christianity) feel that Christianity was a threat to true
religion?  If both of these kinds of Christians and Jews existed, who were the
bad guys and who were the good guys?  The ones who knew for sure which was and
what was the true religion?  Ah, if one could only know for sure!  But this
brings me back from preaching tolerance to confessing my agnosticism.

Gordon Fisher     [log in to unmask]

Frank Morgret wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Otfried Lieberknecht wrote:
>
> >
> > I cannot supply you with quotes of the original texts (which I am sure are
> > nevertheless easily available to you in PG 48), but to get a first
> > impression you might have a look at the anonymous English translation of
> > six of Chr.'s eight homilies against the Jews published or republished by
> > Paul Halsall in his _Medieval Source Book_:
> >
> > http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html
> >
>
> At the risk of igniting yet more flames on our previously fireproof list,
> I wish to share two ideas.
>
>      Idea 1:  Chrysostom had what he considered to be irrefutable
>               and uncontestable evidence of the persecution of
>               Christians by adherents to the Judaic religion.
>               I refer you to the canonical New Testament books
>               "The Acts of the Apostles" and the Pauline epistles.
>               He did not share the dismissive attitude concerning
>               these documents prevalent today, but considered them
>               to be absolutely true.
>
>      Idea 2:  This thread has taken us from the year 350 to the year
>               1945.  While the first date is considered to be in
>               the middle ages by some, the latter date signaling
>               the end of the holocaust is not, to the best of my
>               knowledge.  (Neither is the last half of the first
>               century.  That is why I have not cited the documents
>               Chrysostom found compelling.)
>
> Now I have a question:
>
>               In discussing events from 350 to 1945, have we
>               perhaps carried this thread somewhat beyond the
>               customary scope of our chosen area of discussion?
>
>
> To which I wish to add a mildly cautionary note:
>
>               When we trace events of this and the last century
>               to their medieval (or pre-medieval) roots, we run
>               a risk of attributing modern views to persons,
>               groups, and institutions who not only never held
>               these views but, indeed, had never heard of them.
>               When I have made this error, it has detracted not a
>               little from the value of the conclusions I have
>               drawn.
>
> Thank you all for your tolerance.  I shall now climb down from my pulpit,
> cease, and desist.
>
> May this new year, century, and
> millenium bring yet more wisdom
> to us all, not least of all, to
> me!
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Morgret
> 15 Towering Hts -- #1206
> St Catharines, Ontario
> CANADA
> L2T 3G7
>
> [log in to unmask]



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%