Antisemitism History I: From Ancient Roots to Early 20th Century

Introduction

Antisemitism, often referred to as the “oldest hatred,” has persisted across millennia, evolving to adapt to changing societal, cultural, and political contexts. Its manifestations range from religious prejudice and medieval blood libel to racial theories and modern conspiracy frameworks. Understanding this historical evolution is essential for grasping the scope and adaptability of antisemitism, which remains one of the most enduring forms of hatred in human history.

This blog post begins a detailed exploration of antisemitism’s development over time, focusing on its origins in ancient religious conflicts and tracing its progression through medieval institutional discrimination, economic exclusion, Enlightenment-era cultural objections, 19th-century racial theories, and the global spread of conspiracy narratives in the early 20th century. These chapters provide a foundation for understanding how antisemitism has maintained continuity while adapting to new societal contexts.

This post represents the first part of a broader analysis. Upcoming posts will continue this historical journey, examining antisemitism’s catastrophic culmination in the Holocaust, its evolution in the post-war era, and its alarming resurgence in contemporary times. This series aims to provide a comprehensive yet accessible account of antisemitism’s historical trajectory and its ongoing threats.

Before delving into the historical analysis presented here, it is crucial to establish a clear definition of antisemitism. Definitions are not merely academic exercises; they serve as critical tools for identifying and confronting prejudice in all its forms. This post thus begins with an examination of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, a widely adopted framework that captures both the historical continuity and contemporary manifestations of this ancient hatred. This definition sets the stage for understanding how antisemitism has evolved while maintaining its destructive core themes.

Defining Antisemitism: The IHRA Framework

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism has emerged as the most widely accepted framework for understanding and identifying antisemitism in contemporary society. The core IHRA definition, adopted in 2016, states:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This concise definition is accompanied by eleven illustrative examples that help identify potential manifestations of antisemitism, including:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective  –  such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The IHRA definition excels in recognizing antisemitism’s historical continuity while addressing its contemporary manifestations. Unlike narrower definitions that focus solely on religious prejudice or racial theories, the IHRA framework acknowledges how antisemitism has evolved through different historical periods while maintaining certain core elements. Its examples span from classical religious antisemitism to modern forms related to Israel, reflecting antisemitism’s dangerous adaptability. This historical comprehensiveness allows the definition to remain relevant as antisemitism continues to evolve in response to changing political, social and economic contexts.

The IHRA definition’s practical examples transform an abstract concept into a usable tool for monitoring and responding to antisemitism. Law enforcement agencies, educational institutions, and civil society organizations report improved capacity to identify antisemitic incidents when using the IHRA framework. Studies of implementation show that the definition’s examples help non-specialists recognize less obvious forms of antisemitism, particularly those using coded language or operating through structural mechanisms. This practical utility explains why the definition has been adopted by numerous governments, law enforcement agencies, and educational institutions worldwide.

Furthermore, The IHRA definition carefully balances protecting Jewish communities from antisemitism while preserving free speech. It explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” acknowledging legitimate political discourse. The definition functions as guidance rather than legal code, encouraging thoughtful consideration of context rather than automatic categorization. This nuanced approach allows appropriate distinction between legitimate criticism and prejudice, protecting both Jewish communities and democratic discourse.

One of the major strengths of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is the fact that it addresses contemporary manifestations. The IHRA definition uniquely addresses how antisemitism manifests in relation to Israel – a crucial contemporary development. Research consistently shows that traditional antisemitic tropes increasingly appear in discourse about Israel, creating complex dynamics where legitimate political criticism sometimes incorporates historically antisemitic elements. By providing specific examples of when criticism crosses into antisemitism, the definition helps distinguish between legitimate political discourse and prejudice. This clarity is essential given evidence that antisemitic incidents frequently spike during Middle East conflicts, demonstrating the real-world connection between Israel-related discourse and Jewish community safety.

Some critics have expressed concern that the IHRA definition might constrain legitimate criticism of Israel. However, empirical studies of its implementation show minimal to no evidence of such constraints in practice. The definition explicitly protects legitimate criticism, and legal analyses confirm it poses no inherent threat to free expression when properly applied. Other criticisms suggest the definition is too focused on Israel-related antisemitism. However, this focus appropriately reflects contemporary research showing the significant role Israel-related discourse plays in modern antisemitism. The definition maintains balance by including both traditional and contemporary manifestations.

The definition’s adoption by at least 38 countries (including most European nations, the United States, and Canada) and numerous international organizations demonstrates its cross-cultural validity. This broad consensus is particularly significant given the diverse political and cultural contexts across adopting nations.

Antisemitism has evolved through distinct historical phases, adapting to changing social, political, and economic contexts while maintaining continuity in its core themes. It is worthy to trace antisemitism’s development from its religious origins to its contemporary manifestations.

Ancient Foundations and Early Religious Antisemitism

Embed from Getty Images

The origins of anti-Jewish sentiment can be traced back to the ancient world, where cultural and religious conflicts often overshadowed systematic prejudice. In Hellenistic and Roman societies, Jewish monotheism and their steadfast refusal to participate in polytheistic civic rituals were sources of suspicion and hostility. Prominent Egyptian, Greek, and Roman writers frequently depicted Jews as insular, misanthropic, and resistant to assimilation – stereotypes that would echo persistently throughout history.

A pivotal transformation occurred with the emergence of Christianity from within Judaism. As Christianity sought to establish its identity as a distinct faith, early Christian writings began to frame Jews collectively as culpable for rejecting and crucifying Jesus. Select biblical passages were interpreted to suggest that divine favor had shifted away from the Jewish people to the nascent Christian community. This theological narrative – portraying Jews as spiritually blind, divinely forsaken, and eternally punished – laid the groundwork for centuries of religious antisemitism. Such interpretations not only distorted Jewish history but also fueled enduring hostility toward Jewish communities across Europe and beyond.

Medieval Religious Antisemitism (4th-15th Centuries)

Embed from Getty Images

With Christianity’s rise to political dominance, theological anti-Judaism evolved into institutionalized discrimination against Jewish communities. Church councils and papal decrees systematically curtailed Jewish rights, mandating distinctive clothing and confining Jews to segregated neighborhoods. The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 formalized many of these measures, including the requirement for Jews to wear identifying badges – policies that would later find echoes in the antisemitic practices of Nazi Germany.

The 12th century marked a sinister escalation with the emergence of the blood libel – baseless accusations that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes. This phenomenon began with the infamous Norwich case in 1144 and rapidly spread across Europe, inciting massacres and expulsions. Despite repeated condemnations from certain popes, these allegations persisted, embedding themselves in European folklore and continuing to influence antisemitic rhetoric in some regions even today. The blood libel represented a dangerous shift, portraying Jews not merely as religious dissenters but as agents of malevolent intent.

The Crusades further intensified violence against Jewish communities. During the First Crusade (1096), crusaders massacred Jewish populations in the Rhineland, targeting “enemies of Christ” within Europe before embarking on their campaigns in the Holy Land. This period established a grim precedent for mass violence against Jews, often triggered by religious zealotry, economic instability, or social crises such as plagues. Jewish communities became convenient scapegoats for society’s misfortunes, yet their enduring resilience and cultural vitality during this era stand as a testament to their strength and perseverance.

Economic Dimensions and Expulsions (12th-17th Centuries)

Embed from Getty Images

During the medieval period, legal systems across Europe increasingly restricted Jewish participation in various professions, often barring land ownership and membership in trade guilds. At the same time, Christian prohibitions against usury (moneylending at interest) created an economic niche that Jews were permitted – and often compelled – to fill. This dynamic led to a self-perpetuating cycle: Jews were funneled into financial occupations, which then became a source of resentment and hostility. Economic stereotypes of Jewish financial manipulation intertwined with religious prejudice, solidifying harmful narratives that would endure for centuries.

Between 1290 and 1492, Jewish communities were expelled from England, France, Spain, Portugal, and numerous smaller territories. While these expulsions were often framed in religious terms, they frequently involved the confiscation of Jewish property and wealth, underscoring significant economic motivations behind such actions. These expulsions established a troubling precedent: Jewish communities were treated as conditional residents whose presence could be revoked at will. This notion of Jews as perpetual outsiders within European societies foreshadowed later antisemitic ideologies.

Despite these systemic injustices, Jewish communities displayed remarkable resilience. In exile, they rebuilt their lives and contributed to the cultural and economic vitality of new host regions. This enduring ability to adapt and thrive under adversity is a testament to the strength of Jewish identity and communal solidarity – a legacy that continues to inspire Zionist ideals today.

The Transition to Modernity (17th-18th Centuries)

Embed from Getty Images

The Enlightenment era introduced a paradoxical shift in the position of European Jews. On one hand, rationalist philosophers began to challenge entrenched religious prejudices, advocating for reason and universal human rights. On the other hand, many prominent Enlightenment thinkers perpetuated antisemitic stereotypes under the guise of cultural critique. Voltaire, for example, while denouncing religious intolerance broadly, portrayed Jews as obstinate, superstitious, and resistant to progress. This period marked a transition from primarily religious antisemitism to objections framed in cultural, social, or even racial terms – foreshadowing modern antisemitic ideologies.

Debates surrounding Jewish civil rights further exposed the contradictions of Enlightenment ideals. While some intellectuals and political leaders supported Jewish emancipation, they often did so conditionally, arguing that Jews needed to undergo “improvement” or “reformation” to align with societal norms. Even advocates for Jewish equality framed their support within a narrative that demanded assimilation and transformation as prerequisites for citizenship. This conditional acceptance undermined the Enlightenment’s professed commitment to universal rights by treating Jewish inclusion as contingent upon external standards rather than inherent human dignity.

These developments highlighted the persistent perception of Jews as “other” within European societies – a perception that would later fuel nationalist and racialized antisemitism.

Racial Antisemitism and Nationalism (19th Century)

Embed from Getty Images

The 19th century marked a pivotal shift in antisemitism, as pseudo-scientific racial theories supplanted traditional religious prejudices. Thinkers like Joseph Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain classified humanity into distinct races, each purportedly possessing inherent and immutable characteristics. Jews were categorized as a separate, inferior racial group, rendering religious conversion or cultural assimilation ineffective in addressing perceived “Jewish difference.” This racial antisemitism proved particularly insidious, as it denied Jews the possibility of integration and framed their identity as biologically unchangeable.

Simultaneously, the rise of romantic nationalism introduced new barriers to Jewish inclusion. Nations increasingly defined themselves through shared language, culture, and ancestry – criteria that implicitly excluded Jews. The “Jewish Question” emerged as a central theme in political discourse across Europe, debating whether Jews could ever truly belong within national communities. Racial antisemites argued that Jews constituted an alien presence, incompatible with national unity. These discussions reinforced the perception of Jews as perpetual outsiders, further entrenching their marginalization.

By the late 19th century, antisemitism had evolved into organized political movements. Wilhelm Marr coined the term “antisemitism” in 1879 and founded the League of Antisemites in Germany, advocating for the exclusion of Jews based on racial grounds. In France, the Dreyfus Affair (1894–1906) exposed deep-seated antisemitism within military and political institutions, sparking nationwide debates about Jewish loyalty and equality.

These events marked antisemitism’s transformation from cultural prejudice to a fully developed political ideology – a crucial precursor to its catastrophic manifestations in the 20th century.

Conspiracy Theories and Global Reach (Late 19th-Early 20th Centuries)

Photo: public domain

The publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1903 marked a watershed moment in the global spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories. Fabricated by the Russian secret police, this document falsely claimed to expose a Jewish plot for world domination. Despite being conclusively debunked as a forgery by journalists, courts, and historians, The Protocols gained significant traction worldwide. Its themes – alleging Jewish control over governments, media, and financial systems – modernized older antisemitic tropes and provided a pseudo-intellectual foundation for hatred against Jews.

The global dissemination of The Protocols amplified its impact. In the United States, Henry Ford published and distributed hundreds of thousands of copies through his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, spreading its falsehoods to a wide audience. Adolf Hitler later incorporated its themes into Nazi ideology, making it required reading in German schools. This text became a cornerstone of Nazi propaganda, justifying persecution and violence against Jews. Beyond Europe and America, The Protocols was translated into numerous languages and circulated in regions such as the Middle East and Asia, embedding antisemitic narratives in diverse cultural contexts.

The early 20th century also saw antisemitism expand beyond its European origins. Colonial powers carried these prejudices to their territories, while restrictive immigration policies in countries like the United States targeted Eastern European Jews fleeing pogroms. Antisemitic ideologies adapted to local conditions but retained core themes of Jewish “otherness” and alleged global influence. This internationalization ensured the persistence of antisemitism across different societies, creating a foundation for its catastrophic manifestations in the Holocaust.

Outlook

This blog post has explored the historical evolution of antisemitism from its ancient foundations to its global expansion in the early 20th century. By tracing its development through religious prejudice, economic exclusion, racial theories, and conspiracy narratives, this analysis has highlighted how antisemitism has adapted to changing societal contexts while maintaining its destructive core themes.

In the next post, the focus will shift to the subsequent phases in history: Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (1933–1945), where antisemitism culminated in genocide; the establishment of Israel and the persistence of antisemitism (1948–1960s), which introduced new dimensions to this hatred; and contemporary manifestations (1970s–pre-October 7, 2023), where antisemitism evolved further in response to modern political and social dynamics.