">>It hasn't been changed, it was coined to mean anti-Jewish and that was how it was used. His name eludes me right now, but an Austrian Jewish scholar used it in the 1860s to criticise some virulently anti-Jewish scholar and 20 years later, Wilhelm Marr widely used the term to reffer(sic) solely to Jews.<<

That seems to me to be a very specious and dark argument. Its like fundamentalists saying that the only meaning of "Anti-Christian" was to be against them. Or for Mexicans to say that "anti-immigrant" means anti-Mexican. Or for "pro-life" to refer only to people who are anti-abortion.

Wilhelm Marr using common english words to his own purpose does not make his usage correct. He did not trade mark the word, so "anti-Semitic" meaning against Semites, as Semites are defined is obviously the correct usage.

"Anti-Jew", is a much more precise and honest term. It is what most people mean when they say "anti-Semitic". Certainly it is what anyone who shares Mr. Marr's definition means. I don't know why they do not just use the former. I know its an old tradition to use the broader term for the specific group, and apparently we have Mr. Marr to thank for that, but I feel that there is a certain unintended comedy in hearing an Arab called an anti-Semite. Its as if a Mexican immigrant called me anti-immigrant, when I am also an immigrant."

Wilhelm Marr was a very militant GERMAN nationalist and antisemite. There is a certain unintended comedy in seeing someone point out a spelling error of mine whilst saying that Marr used English words.
Did not trademark it??? That's seem very specious.
For most Germans and Frenchmen who weren't linguists, the group most associated with Semites were Jews. Wilhem Marr formed the ANTISEMITIC League, to combat Jewish influence on Germany. Read some of his works. Arabs are neither here nor there. Antisemitism has to do with Jews. Period.

"2. "holy people" is a reference to, if not the entire Jewish people of the time, then to a segment thereof - maybe the Pharisees, maybe the Sanhedrin, maybe the priests, maybe some other Jewish authorities, but, in any event, definitely not to the Romans,
3. it is a lie, and, historically, a horrendous lie, to say that the Jews, or the Pharisees, or the Sanhedrin, or the priests, or any Jewish authorities, legal or religious, hung Jesus on a cross."

Jeremiah, Isaiah and Malachi must've been rampant antisemites.
Anyway, nobody said that the Jews, Pharisees, Sanhedrin, etc., hung Christ on the cross, just like nobody has claimed that Al Capone pulled the trigger himself on St V's Day.


Pilate had the authority to overrule the Jews, but they made a very potent threat. John 19:12. "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." There was plenty with which they could blackmail Pilate. He didn't have the cleanest record.