Some lawmakers voted against a House bill that instructs the Education Department to consider a recognized definition of antisemitism when probing anti-Jewish discrimination at schools, colleges and universities as effectively outlawing the Bible’s New Testament.
However, experts in the Bible and evangelism pushed back Thursday at the claims made by several Republican House members and media figure Tucker Carlson that HR 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, makes the historic Christian Scriptures illegal.
Republicans Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, and Matt Gaetz of Florida slammed the measure as outlawing the Bible because of verses discussing the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus, and the persecution of the early Christian church.
“This bill is little more than an effort to score political points and is so poorly drafted that it violates the Constitution and could have serious ramifications for the Christian community,” Mr. Biggs posted in a statement on X.
Ms. Greene said on X that the measure “could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.”
Announcing his “no” vote, Mr. Gaetz claimed on X that the “bill says the definition of antisemitism includes ‘contemporary examples of antisemitism’ identified by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). One of those examples includes: ‘claims of Jews killing Jesus.’”
He said, “Antisemitism is wrong, but this legislation is written without regard for the Constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words. The Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill!”
Mr. Carlson, the former Fox News host, answered conservative Charlie Kirk’s question of whether the House made “part of the Bible illegal” with the declaration, “Yes. The New Testament.”
Those who study the New Testament and who share the Gospel, however, say these claims are off base.
“The New Testament is a religious document, [a] historical document that charts the disagreements among first-century Jewish people about who the Messiah is,” said Mitch Glaser, president of Chosen People Ministries in New York City. “So it must be viewed as a dialogue, sometimes a passionate dialogue within a particular family and ethnicity.”
Mr. Glaser said a recent survey of evangelical Christians, mainline Protestants and Catholics found a number “below 10%” held the view that Jews were accountable for the crucifixion.
Scholar Michael L. Brown, author of “Turn the Tide: How to Ignite a Cultural Awakening,” said that while the New Testament is “absolutely not,” antisemitic, “it has been frequently used by antisemites throughout history.”
He said, “It is not antisemitic to say that there were Jewish leaders who turned against Jesus and gave him over to be crucified. It is antisemitic, to make the statement that the Jews killed Christ, as if all Jews in history were Christ-killers.”
Michael Rydelnik, vice president and dean of the undergraduate school at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago said that negative references to “the Jews” in the New Testament are intended to describe certain leaders who opposed Jesus and his early followers, a cadre that was almost entirely Jewish.
“I think there’s some 90 plus times the word ‘the Jews’ is used, and it for the most part refers to leaders, who were definitely opposed to the Lord to the Messiahship of Jesus,” Mr. Rydelnik said. “It is wrongheaded to take the word Jews in a collective sense of all Jewish people. It really does refer to a limited group of Jewish people.”
According to Daniel Boyarin, emeritus professor of Talmudic Culture at the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, claims that the measure puts the Bible in the crosshairs are wrong.
“The Congressional decision has nothing to do with the New Testament,” he said via email.
The House measure passed by a vote of 320-91 on Wednesday, with the bill now going to the Senate. There’s no word on when the upper chamber might consider it.
• Mark A. Kellner can be reached at mkellner@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.