His argument focuses away from the NT itself, and focuses on how the NT was interpreted by "the church fathers", who seemingly to be any proclaimed Christian in church history with an anti-semitic slant. I am not a history buff, so I am unfamiliar with the "church fathers" he speaks of excepting Martin Luther, who became as it turns out, quite anti-semitic later in life. On the other hand, I kind of thought of the writers of the NT and their contemporaries as the "church fathers".
Rather my focus has been on the NT content itself with special emphaisis on the moral teachings of Jesus that seemed relevant (love your enemy, love everyone as yourself et al. pray for those who do wrong to you, return good for evil and such).
My own position has been that following Christ's commands to and ethical example are the epitome of what it means to be Christian, and that we all necessarily fall short of that ideal. And that those who persecute Jews (whether or not they are motivated in part by vengeance for the death of Christ) are being un-Christian to the extent that they do so.
“His argument focuses away from the NT itself, and focuses on how the NT was interpreted by “the church fathers”, who seemingly to be any proclaimed Christian in church history with an anti-semitic slant. “
Maybe he finds the NT inconvenient for his purposes.
” On the other hand, I kind of thought of the writers of the NT and their contemporaries as the “church fathers”.”
You should, because they are. Those would be “the Apostolic fathers”. Theologians up to about the 500s tend to get included in lists of the church fathers, depending on who makes the list.
“My own position has been that following Christ’s commands to and ethical example are the epitome of what it means to be Christian, “
You’d soon find yourself embroiled in a debate over works versus grace with that position, although neither side would disagree that the moral precepts are worth emulating.