Well Jesus critiques the Pharisees (ancestors of the modern day Jews) in the New Testament and then the authors of the NT run with that and go a bit further so the NT ends up a fairly anti-Semitic document. Then there's Muslim anti-Semitism which has its own causes. Then there's "woke" anti-Semitism which regards Israel as an amorphous oppressor/occupier and glosses over Israeli/Jewish victims. There's different kinds and many reasons.

Culturally, Jews like to argue. They'll complain. They're a people whose tradition rests on constant argumentation and debate in contrast to other cultural traditions. They can be a stubborn people. Then there's the economic history where Jews were often the middle-men such as loaners and bankers making them unpopular.

TLDR: This is a complex question but IMHO if you really wish to understand anti-Semitism I recommend reading the New Testament, specifically the Gospels.

The Jews are somewhat unique in surviving with their own distinct culture in place as a diaspora people. However, there are other diaspora peoples, and they have faced similar issues as well.

Second, the fact that the two great monotheistic faiths descend from Judaism has given it a unique place in Christian and Muslim lands. While Jews have been the victims of oppression and violence from both groups over the generations, they have also been tolerated far more than any other faith due to this connection. Christians, for example, exterminated all "pagan" religions and generally tried to purge lands they conquered from any trace of Islam (e.g. the Iberian peninsula). Jews however, were allowed to stay as a separate group due to their connection to Christianity, although they were also often beset by ghastly pogroms due to their differences.

You see a similar phenomena in Islam, although Islam historically tended to be more tolerant of Christians than vice versa.

No other diaspora group has this same sort of deep link to major world religions.

The NT is a compilation largely written by Jews for other Jews or for recent converts to Judaism. Had Christianity flamed out in its first 150 year or so, it would be thought of as a sect within Judaism. So, with that in mind, it's hard to see how it could really be "anti-Semitic," as such. The justification for allowing Jews to continue to practice their religion, unlike the pagans, was drawn from the NT.

Saying the NT is anti-Semitic is a bit like saying Luther or Calvin's work is "anti-Christian." To be sure, their work has motivated a good deal of prejudice, oppression, and violence against Christians, but it's an internal schism.

Saying the NT is anti-Semitic is a bit like saying Luther or Calvin's work is "anti-Christian." To be sure, their work has motivated a good deal of prejudice, oppression, and violence against Christians, but it's an internal schism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Once a Jew has accepted the divine revelation of Jesus Christ he has placed himself outside of Judaism. If religion were sport then he would be playing a very different sort of ballgame. We have religious schisms within Judaism at this time: See Hillel vs Shammai.

If the writers were born Jews then they were surely not anti-Semites in the modern sense, but their writing in critiquing the Pharisees so harshly (and imho sometimes unnecessarily) served as a springboard for anti-Semitism.

John 14

"Trust in God; trust also in me... my Father's house... I AM the way and the truth and the life... If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have SEEN him... Anyone who has seen me has SEEN the Father... Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?... The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him... On that day you will realize that I am in MY Father, and you are in me, and I in you." Jesus (my emphasis)

Judaism fractured because of this renegade's life. It's never been the same

Antisemitism starts out as a Christian thing.

Prior to the Christian era, the Jews were one of several religious ethnicities that were periodically plundered / conquered by stronger neighbors. The Babylonias didn't conquer them because of religion or ethnic features. They were just inconveniently located on property the Nebuchadnezzar wanted.

The Christian Era began some time after the crucifixion (and alleged resurrection) of Jesus Christ by the Romans. Jesus was Jewish, of course, and if he was born to be the savior of Israel, it didn't work out very well.

The early church began informally and eventually became a capitalized group -- Christians. By this time, the Jews had revolted, and in reprisal the Romans totally profaned the Temple and scattered more Jews across the empire.

Somewhere along the line, Christians got the idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus = god = deicide. That worked well enough for Christians. Somebody needed to be blamed, and the Romans were no longer in business (as an empire in the West, at least). So, blame the Jews.

Enemies are handy because so many things -- plagues, wars, financial problems, bad harvests, etc. -- can be blamed on them. The Jews were numerous enough in total, but nowhere in particular. They didn't have a lot of power. They were duly blames for bad news.

Being on good terms with a group and at the same time viewing them as enemies is cognitively dissonance. As time went on, Jews became a caricature in the portrayals by Christians. The Church (Roman and Orthodox) was the vehicle for distributing antisemitism.

Antisemitism has been well established in Christian countries since... pick a century -- 13th? Maybe even before then, It has put down deep roots among Slavic, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and various other ethnic groups,

Then there's Islam,

Wiki summarizes it into stages well:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

Somewhere along the line, Christians got the idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus = god = deicide. — BC

It is in their Bible. It wasn't until Vatican II in the 1960s that the Catholics officially repudiated the idea. But if one were to just pick up and read the NT the most straight-off answer is that the Jews were behind it.

"His blood is on us and our children" (Matthew 27) cry the blood-thirsty Jews during the crucifixion.

Ye but the Romans tortured him to death. They didn't have to. It was their choice

Yes, it was done by the hand of Pilate. No one is arguing that. Pilate is described as hesitant. All I'm saying is that there's solid biblical grounds for pointing the finger at the Jews. He was tried in front of a Sanhedrin, an ancient Jewish court.

Maybe historically he bought their anathema upon himself. John chapter 6 has Jesus telling people to eat him, and according to many scholars this was considered an insulting use of language. It seems like he was prodding them to do something. If he was just a man this could be forgotten way long ago. But many believe what he said..

Should there be any country that is controlled under a single faith? Hamas of course is evil and has terrible tactics, but Israel being a Jewish state hasn't really helped the middle east? I think this recent war has killed as many Israelites as Palestinians. They really do seem to want to eliminate one another.

This is a lighter view of it all from 8 years ago.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ECscKICzsJ0

the most straight-off answer is that the Jews were behind it. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course. Jesus challenged the Jewish power elite, which outside of the Temple was subordinate to the Romans.

But the narrative of the Jewish elite's animosity towards Jesus wasn't, in my opinion, responsible for anti-semitism. I don't know of antisemitic attacks on Jews in the late Roman era, or in the immediate period after the collapse of the Western Empire (around 480). I don't think I've read about antisemitic attacks in Europe until the 10th - 15th centuries.

Religious attitudes were reflected in the economic, social, and political life of medieval Europe. In much of Europe during the Middle Ages, Jews were denied citizenship and its rights, barred from holding posts in government and the military, and excluded from membership in guilds and the professions. To be sure, some European rulers and societies, particularly during the early Middle Ages, afforded Jews a degree of tolerance and acceptance, and it would be an error to conceive of Jews as facing an unchanging and unceasing manifestation of anti-Jewish oppression throughout this period. In 1096, however, knights of the First Crusade unleashed a wave of anti-Semitic violence in France and the Holy Roman Empire, including massacres in Worms, Trier (both now in Germany), and Metz (now in France). Unfounded accusations of ritual murder and of host desecration and the blood libel—allegations of Jews’ sacrifice of Christian children at Passover to obtain blood for unleavened bread—appeared in the 12th century. — Encyclopedia Brittanica

The ghetto system began in Renaissance Italy in July 1555 with Pope Paul IV's issuing of the Cum nimis absurdum. This change in papal policy implemented a series of restrictions on Jewish life that dramatically reshaped their place in society.

on March 31, 1492, in the Alhambra's resplendent Hall of the Ambassadors, Ferdinand and Isabella signed an edict, the Alhambra Decree, expelling the Jews from Spain.

If there has been a thousand years of antisemitism in Europe, there were also a thousand years after Jesus when there wasn't much antisemitism. Something besides the Biblical Texts was at work. My guess is that the early slanders, i.e., using Christian children's blood to make passover bread, was authored by some sons of bitches in the church, or by some of their running dog lackeys. But for what reason did the bastards do it?

Wiki summarizes it into stages well:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism — Hanover

What wiki illustrates is that there is a coinciding of religion, ethnicity, and economic group. Conflict Sociology suggests that the more these boundaries align, and the sharper they are, the more likely there is to be open conflict. And as is usual in living systems, the reverse is also the case, the more there is conflict, the more aligned and sharp the boundaries will remain.

Most often, the Picts, Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, etc, etc merge over time into a common folk sharing the land to the extent that such identities become lost entirely. 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.

Humans don't need any special reason to split themselves up into groups and then hate each other. But Jews and Christians had a peculiar dynamic.

A jew could technically become a christian at any point by accepting the saviour. At the same time, the refusal to do so always included a sort of challenge to the christian majority. Reactions to this differed based in the ebb and flow of the fortunes of the overall community.

Jews were often tolerated explicitly to demonstrate christian superiority. The notion was to keep jews around as distinctly second class citizens to constantly remind them of their inferiority and entice them to convert.

But, when the fortunes of the overall community fell, this notion could fold in on itself. Then the separate, marginalised community could look like an intentional mockery. In the christian anti-semitic tales, such as the blood libel, there seems to be an element of christian practice, reflected in a distorting mirror.

When did some groups start disliking or hating Jewish people? — TiredThinker

Isaac Asimov said the Jews invented religious intolerance and then went on to profoundly influence the rest of the world, setting the stage for becoming victims of intolerance themselves.

The basic idea is that in the ancient world, it was normal for people to respect foreign gods. If you went to city X, you stopped by to honor their gods and then proceeded with your business. The concept of a false god is Hebrew in origin.

Then there's "woke" anti-Semitism which regards Israel as an amorphous oppressor/occupier and glosses over Israeli/Jewish victims. — BitconnectCarlos

You're confusing anti-zionist positions with anti-semitic positions. Israel is an oppressor and occupier of land that doesn't belong to it and continues to settle it. Meanwhile commiting gross crimes against humanity in its treatment of Palestinians under its occupation and Israeli Arabs. The current government even condones and supports settlers killing people in the West Bank and unilaterally "legitimises" illegal settlements as if has the authority to do so. That's established fact, nobody speaks about the occupied territories as if it belongs to Israel. How about an unequivocal comdemnation from you about those crimes?

That same government is killing thousands of Palestinians in Gaza and collectively punishes them for the terrorist attack by Hamas. The majority of victims are children and women. Israel is so tough killing so many unarmed civilians! Such manly men and courageous women. Or as we call them war criminals.

Or are you just going to "gloss over Palestinian victims"?

Right, but the actual teachings of Jesus are more against the Sadducees' formalism than the Pharisees. The shift in named focus probably has more to do with the fact that the Sadducees had been significantly reduced as a contemporary power by the time the Gospels were set down.

Judaism at the time had already split into multiple competing sects: Sadducee, Pharisee, Zealot, and Platonizers.

The NT certainly motivated anti-Semitism at times, but so did the OT. The OT's prolific examples of Israel's collective recalcitrance and evil doing was often used as justification for oppression. And yet I find it hard to classify the Tanakh as "anti-Semitic," in any straightforward way, given it's also a pillar of Jewish culture and that culture's survival itself.

But the story itself leaves open this possiblity of being used in this way precisely because, unlike many holy books, it frequently casts its people in a negative light. The Book of Johna for example has the hated Assyrians repenting of their sins in a way the Jews never fully muster, much to the chagrin of Jonah himself. Job features the piety and holiness of an Edomite, a descendant of Esau, whom the Jews continually warred with and oppressed. Ruth again shows a foreigner acting more holy than most of the chosen people. These texts open the door to internal and external critique, although they also seem to set the ground for success as a diaspora people living among and (in antiquity) converting large numbers of foreigners. Because, around Christ's time, we see Jews actually being quite successful in converting large numbers of foreigners. And, their Platonizing (Philo to Alexandrian Christians) actually seems to have set the ground work for later Neoplatonism too.

Once a Jew has accepted the divine revelation of Jesus Christ he has placed himself outside of Judaism. If religion were sport then he would be playing a very different sort of ballgame. We have religious schisms within Judaism at this time: See Hillel vs Shammai.

Not originally. The first center of Christian worship was the church led by James in Jerusalem. This Church was made up of Jews who considered themselves Jews. Paul's letters acknowledge the authority of this church and ask that funds be sent there. He sees his role in preaching to Jewish converts as special (the "Gentiles" in this context were largely non-Jews who had already accepted the Jewish God). Converts are something you see in the OT, e.g., Achior in the Book of Judith, Ruth, etc.

"Jewish Christians," appear to survive into the fourth century in Palestine and Armenia in isolated areas. And of course this tradition exists today in Messianic Judaism, which makes much of the early, more Jewish James/Peter centered faith.

Christians only began taking on a distinct identity during the rebellion against Rome, which they sat out, circa 70 AD. Paul's letters actually pre-date this period, as do some of the others.

The other is at least our moral inferior, but at the same time an existential threat. Both aspects are essential for our unity; without the other we fragment into internal conflict. The other necessitates, justifies and takes the blame for the burden of suffering entailed by the individual's subjugation to the group, and there can be no group that is not defined in terms of its other. 'Othering' thus becomes a process, the threat of which controls us. If you demonstrate insufficient revulsion and hatred for the other, you may be seen as, and so become, other yourself. This loss of identity is a fate worse than death. Such a fate worse than death gives rise to the martyr - one who dies to maintain their identity.

Romans ch. 11 has Paul comparing the equality of all before God in terms of salvation with the special adoption of the Jews by God. Christians must believe this adoption or setting apart is real. Jews have been considered special since the whole Bible thing started.

You're confusing anti-zionist positions with anti-semitic positions. — Benkei

I am not. When crowds of protestors are screaming "gas the Jews" in Australia or when Jews are being told by police to stay away from these pro-Hamas marches that is a sign of anti-Semitism. When Jewish students are threatened on college campuses like Cornell that is anti-Semitism. There has been a massive upsurge of anti-Semitism in the US. It has become a big problem on college campuses. Statistics that track these incidents bear this out.

When did some groups start disliking or hating Jewish people? — TiredThinker

Because of the Jewish claim that they are "God's chosen people".

While atheists are likely to dismiss this claim as religious fancy or delusion of grandeur, it actually means something to other people who also believe in God.

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others. This is not special. But there are only few religions that also claim ethnic supremacy.

Islam and Christianity accept and even welcome new members of all nationalities and all races, by an act of conversion, without the requirement of being born and raised into said religion. But some religions aren't like that. And those that aren't seem to be more likely to become the target of persecution of those who are more inclusive.

There aren't actually that many Jewish people in the world on a whole. I don't know what threat some people see.

They read at least the Bible, as the Old Testament is also part of Jewish scripture.
Just read it, no further explanation necessary.

Because of the Jewish claim that they are "God's chosen people". — baker

Yes, chosen to carry out the 613 commandments, only 320 of which are applicable without the temple. Chosen to perform such commandments such as placing a mezuzah on one's door.

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others. — baker

Not something you'd hear in a synagogue if you ever ventured into one.

Islam and Christianity accept and even welcome new members of all nationalities and all races, by an act of conversion, without the requirement of being born and raised into said religion. — baker

They are universalistic religions who will push their beliefs and have caused considerable harm in doing so. Jews do not convert by the sword. Jews are not here to tell everyone else that they should be a Jew. But one can convert to Judaism if they like and are prepared to take on the challenges.

Yes, chosen to carry out the 613 commandments, only 320 of which are applicable without the temple. Chosen to perform such commandments such as placing a mezuzah on one's door. — BitconnectCarlos

Chosen as in "preferred over all others".

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others.
— baker

Not something you'd hear in a synagogue if you ever ventured into one. — BitconnectCarlos

It goes without saying.

Jews are not here to tell everyone else that they should be a Jew. But one can convert to Judaism if they like and are prepared to take on the challenges.

Not everyone can convert to Judaism, or at least not to just any school of Judaism.

Is there anything particular about their lifestyles that is unappealing? — TiredThinker

They refuse to integrate into the society they live in, they set themselves apart.

Yes, chosen to carry out the 613 commandments, only 320 of which are applicable without the temple. Chosen to perform such commandments such as placing a mezuzah on one's door. — BitconnectCarlos

No, they believe they have a special relationship with God, the gentiles will suffer when they die, and God will eventually put the Jews in charge of the world.

Is there anything particular about their lifestyles that is unappealing?
— TiredThinker
They refuse to integrate into the society they live in, they set themselves apart. — baker

I do my best, but certain prejudices (cough, cough) can make that challenging.

I do my best, but certain prejudices (cough, cough) can make that challenging. — Joshs

Like what?

I do my best, but certain prejudices (cough, cough) can make that challenging.
— Joshs

Like what? — frank

Like the belief that jews “refuse to integrate into the society they live in, they set themselves apart.”

Many of the jews of Germany in the 1930’s considered themselves completely assimilated into German society. Boy did they get that wrong.

Like the belief that jews “refuse to integrate into the society they live in, they set themselves apart.” — Joshs

Do you have any concerns about the future of Judaism? Do you think that integration will cause you to become the end of the lineage? Would it bother you if you did?