":I don't think Humus sapiens is ""assuming the worst about the motivations of others"".  My sense of it is that he just sees things differently and is perhaps more passionate (and yes, a bit self-righteous) about it than some of us.  

Factual accuracy

There are at least three ways to view these events.  Let ""a=Persecution of Christians by some Jews; A=Institutional persecution of Christians by Jews; let B=Christian persecution of Jews

First, the perspective that we all reject: The Jews persecuted the Christians and this justifies 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism.  This is ""A happened AND A justifies B"".

Second, the perspective that is, I believe, the mainstream position: Some Jews persecuted the Christians.  Enough so that the Christians viewed this or, at least, cast this as an institutional rejection of Christianity (culminating the hypothesized Council of Jamnia).  The polemic and conflict arising out of this sectarian conflict colored Christian attitudes, policies and behavior towards Jews for the next 2000 years.  This anti-Semitism is rooted in the original conflict between Jews and Christians during the formative years of early Christianity.  However, most people today reject the notion of the events providing any legitimate justification for anti-Semitism.  This is ""A happened; A was used to justify B BUT many people argue A does not justify B"".

Third, the perspective that some liberal theologians are pushing: The NT account is ahistorical because there is no corroborating evidence outside the New Testament or the writings of the church fathers.  (Note:  Forgive me if I am overstating the position.)  According to this perspective, the persecutions either never happened or were exaggerated by either the NT authors or later interpreters of the NT authors.  For example, it is possible that the incidents in the NT represent isolated incidents and do not represent an institutional policy.  Later events (post Bar Kokhba) may have led to a re-interpretation of the isolated events into a perception of institutional policy.  This is ""A never happened; a happened; A was used to justify B BUT many people argue A does not justify B"".

I believe that all of these perspectives (yes, even the first one) should be presented in the article.  We should give ""due weight"" to each perspective citing sources who support each view. 

Finally, I think that we are agreed that we should not say ""Jews persecuted the Christians"" but rather ""According to the NT, Jews persecuted the Christians"".  If this formulation were used uniformly throughout the article, would there still be a dispute over factual accuracy?  

"