I have found watching Channel 4’s latest documentary series ‘Christianity: A History’ to be particularly interesting and thoughtful, presenting (although a rather simplistic) history of the impact of the rise and spread of Christianity throughout the world. However, I found the first episode at best faintly ridiculous and at worst somewhat insulting. Howard Jacobson’s premise seemed to be that Christianity was ashamed of its Jewish roots and had sewn anti-Semitism into its core beliefs and practices so as to shake off this connection. It essentially held the spread of Christianity responsible for the atrocities committed against Jewish people throughout history. Whilst everyone must acknowledge that much evil has been perpetrated against Jewish people in the name of Christ this is very different from holding the religion itself responsible for the murder of Jews over the centuries. He rightly noted that the development of the idea of the ‘blood libel’ was a despicable development of the Middle-Ages that created a doctrine which justified persecution, but essentially misunderstood why it emerged. Medieval anti-Semitism wasn’t about Jewishness or Judaism but about difference and all people who were marked out from society in one form or another (from heretics to lepers) became the victims of a society that struggled to create uniformity and that eliminate threats to this ideal. This is not to excuse attacks and pogroms against Jews, but to highlight that it was their difference rather than the specificity of their religion that made them a target. Jacobson throughout the program also seemed to suggest that Christians should continually refer to their religion through a Jewish paradigm, forgetting that whilst in many ways Jesus did not intend to create a new religion, His reforms were perhaps too extensive for those who believed in Him and His teachings to remain inside mainstream Judaism and that a new religion was indeed formed, with its own beliefs, practices and objectives. The idea that Christians should persistently refer back to Judaism in the practice of their own religion seems absurd to me, not least as it does not hold the same things to be important. Christianity is its own religion and differs radically from Judaism in many respects and so cannot refer to Judaism at every point. The fact that Jesus was Jewish and indeed that Christianity is in some measure a reformed Judaism is important and central to the religion as I understand it but doesn’t mean Christians must take heed of Judaism at every turn because it has developed its own priorities and its own faith. This does not mean that Christianity and Christians are ashamed of their Jewish roots, nor does it mean that the religion itself has adopted anti-Semitism so as to define itself. In that Christian education I did receive in a household of atheists with Presbyterian roots, I would argue that in many ways I was influenced much more by anti-Catholic ideas than anti-Jewish ones. Jesus’ own Judaism was important as were tenants and teachings such as the Ten Commandments and I was made aware of the Jewish legacy in Christianity, a legacy that was neither something of shame nor something that was hidden or underplayed. However, it remained a fact that it was where Jesus’ teachings departed from Judaism which marked one out as a Christian and defined the religion. I, and I doubt many Christians are or were, wasn’t brought up to understand my own religion as defined through hatred of Jews or Judaism. Thus to some extent Jacobson’s ideas were offensive to Christians, reducing their religion to mere Jew-hating. Its tone was also rather patronising towards Christianity making it appear as merely a flippant offshoot of Judaism that does not properly adhere to its tenants, rather than a complex and developed faith in its own right.