Antisemitism has taken many forms across history, adapting to different cultural and political contexts; yet one particular accusation has endured with remarkable persistence: the claim that Jews bear collective responsibility for the death of Jesus. ¹Mary C. Boys Redeeming our sacred story: The death of Jesus and relations between Jews and Christians. Paulist Press, 2013. This accusation took shape within early Christian rhetoric, where certain Gospel passages, most notably Matthew 27:25, were interpreted as affirming Jewish guilt. In this verse, the crowd declares, “His blood be on us and on our children!” a line that later Christian tradition transformed into the enduring and harmful charge of Jewish deicide.²Jules Isaac, The Christian Roots of Antisemitism (London: CCJ, 1965), 8-9. As historian and theologian Gareth Lloyd Jones observes, this verse “has haunted Jewish-Christian relations for almost sixteen hundred years,” serving as a theological justification for centuries of antisemitism.³Gareth Lloyd Jones, Hard Sayings: Difficult New Testament Texts for Jewish-Christian Dialogue (London: CCJ, 1993), p.15. This transformed a local Roman execution into a theological indictment of the entire Jewish people. By the modern era, this belief had profoundly shaped European attitudes toward Jews, legitimizing discrimination and violence until its formal repudiation by many churches in the 20th century, most notably in the Catholic Church’s Nostra Aetate (1965).

This blood libel has been similarly perpetuated in education systems, despite clear discussion of its antisemitic underbelly in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism; the definition specifies that using symbols and images associated with classical antisemitism, including claims of Jews killing Jesus are classed as antisemitic.⁴International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). “Working Definition of Antisemitism.” https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism Many countries are signatories to this alliance, accepting this definition of antisemitism as fact in the wake of the Holocaust. However, there is evidence of multiple European signatory countries including antisemitic claims concerning the death of Jesus in their curricula, taught to young children.

More specifically, textbooks in countries such as Ireland and Poland perpetuate claims of Jews betraying and killing Jesus, contributing to antisemitic stereotypes. This is especially pertinent considering recent meetings in 2025 of Pope Leo XIV with religious representatives, including Rabbis and Jewish leaders. These meetings underscore the importance of dialogue and interreligious relations, and are an important step in eradicating these harmful claims, yet according to IMPACT-se’s research, there is still a significant amount of antisemitic material taught to young children in these countries. This piece aims to show that Christian interpretations of Jesus’ death can be framed in ways that do not implicate Jews, and that such approaches could meaningfully strengthen Jewish-Christian relations.

This analysis will therefore examine Irish, Polish, Nigerian, and Swedish textbooks to assess how different educational traditions handle the portrayal of Jews and the life and death of Jesus. The cases of Ireland and Poland, both IHRA signatories, demonstrate how deeply entrenched narratives have failed to temper long-standing libels within their educational systems. By contrast, Nigeria offers insight into how a non-IHRA African country, with a significant Christian population, engages with these same narratives, often presenting Jesus’ Jewish identity more accurately despite occasional factual errors. Sweden, meanwhile, provides a model of how a Christian country can teach Christian history without reinforcing antisemitic tropes or distorting Jewish history, namely referring to Jesus’ birthplace as ‘Palestine,’ historically known as ‘Judea.’ Taken together, these comparisons suggest that the persistence of such libels is not inherent to Christian tradition, and that Jewish–Christian history can be taught in ways that neither rely on nor reproduce antagonistic narratives.

History of Judeo-Christian relations:

Jewish–Catholic relations have been shaped by nearly two millennia of theological tension, social exclusion, and, more recently, significant attempts at reconciliation. In late antiquity and the medieval period, Christian teachings increasingly framed Jews as collectively responsible for the death of Jesus, a charge that became central to anti-Jewish sentiment across Europe.⁵Jeremy Cohen, Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). This theological claim underpinned discriminatory laws, forced conversions, social segregation, and episodes of violence, cementing a narrative of Jews as the religious “other” within Christian societies.

The Catholic Church’s stance began to shift only in the modern era. Enlightenment ideas, Jewish emancipation, and evolving biblical scholarship gradually challenged older doctrines.⁶David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780–1840 (Oxford University Press, 1987).  The most decisive transformation came in 1965 with the Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate, which explicitly rejected the accusation of collective Jewish guilt, affirmed the Jewish roots of Christianity, condemned antisemitism, and encouraged dialogue between Catholics and Jews.⁷Vatican Council II, Nostra Aetate (1965). It also rejected the concept of supersessionism, which had long presented Christianity as superseding Judaism as a religion, by affirming that the Jewish people remain in a covenant with God and that Christianity’s emergence did not nullify or invalidate Judaism’s religious legitimacy.

Since then, successive popes, particularly John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, have advanced Catholic–Jewish reconciliation through formal apologies, interfaith engagement, and stronger condemnations of antisemitism. Nonetheless, residual theological stereotypes and their echoes in cultural, liturgical, and educational settings continue to pose challenges.

By comparison, relations between Jews and Protestant communities have often followed a different trajectory. While early Protestant leaders likewise perpetuated hostility toward Jews, their theological frameworks tended to be more diverse, allowing for a wider range of interpretations and, in some cases, earlier openings toward tolerance. In the modern era, many Protestant denominations reformed their teachings on Jews and Judaism more rapidly than the Catholic Church, distancing themselves from supersessionist claims and promoting interfaith dialogue, as reflected in collected official statements and dialogue documents.⁸Franklin Sherman (ed.), Bridges: Documents of the Christian–Jewish Dialogue, Vol. 1 (Paulist Press, 2011). Nevertheless, elements of anti-Jewish interpretation persisted in some Protestant contexts as well.

Taken together, these histories show that while enduring theological legacies continue to shape aspects of Christian thought, both Catholic and Protestant communities have developed strong foundations for dialogue and reform. The persistent challenges underscore the need for continued reflection and responsible education, but the progress of recent decades offers a clear framework for deepening mutual understanding.

Ireland:

Over the past two years, there has been a significant surge in antisemitism in Ireland, with some news reports even describing Jew hate among Irish Christians as being at “medieval” levels. A December 2024 study of 1,014 Irish Christians found that 36% believe Jews “have too much power in the business world” and that Jews are hated “because of the way they behave.” These biases entrench antisemitic stereotypes concerning money, greed and the general hate-ability of Jews, which are especially prevalent among Irish Catholics: the same study found that Irish Catholics are almost 80% less likely to support Israel than Protestants. One of the professors responsible for the study, notes that the concept of Jewish guilt for crucifying Jesus is “far more widespread” in Ireland than America.

In addition to the salience of antisemitic attitudes across Ireland, there has been an uptick in anti-Zionist rhetoric over the course of the Israel-Hamas war. This resulted in the closure of the Israeli embassy in Dublin in December 2024, due to the “extreme anti-Israel policy of the Irish government.” Ambassador Erlich’s statement surrounding the closure emphasized that antisemitism has alarmingly increased over the past year, and concerns for the future of Ireland’s Jewish and Israeli communities. Given the current environment in which antisemitism remains a concern, the educational development of young Irish children gains added significance, made even more salient by the upcoming tenth anniversary of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

When examining Irish education surrounding Jews and antisemitism, there are a number of examples relating to antisemitic tropes, and one more recently revised example relating to Jesus’ death. A 2019 textbook for ‘Junior Infants’ depicts people who “did not like Jesus” as traditional Jews, which fosters negative stereotypes against Jews among young children; the comic goes on to claim that “they brought him to a man called Pilate,” perpetuating the stereotype that Jews sold Jesus out to be killed. This portrayal aligns with antisemitic libel blaming Jews collectively for his death, a claim forbidden by the IHRA definition of antisemitism, to which Ireland is a signatory. The example was finally revised in the 2024 edition of the textbook, a welcome indication that the publisher recognised and acted upon the antisemitic themes embedded in the earlier version. However, because this correction occurred only last year, after the problematic material had been taught for an extended period, the rhetoric of the original example has already entered public consciousness. This underscores the importance of timely identification and removal of harmful content, as delays allow such narratives to take root even after formal corrections are made.

In one Grade 11 and Grade 12 textbook, an image of Auschwitz is presented with the caption “prisoner-of-war camp,” a profoundly misleading characterisation that erases its primary function as the largest site of systematic mass extermination in human history. By framing Auschwitz in this way, the text not only downplays the genocidal intent of the camp but also risks implying that those imprisoned there were being held for some form of wrongdoing, reducing the imprisonment and murder of Jews to a punitive response to an imagined “offence.” Such a depiction reflects the extent to which antisemitic distortions continue to permeate the curriculum and shape how students understand the Holocaust, embedding stereotypes of Jewish blame or culpability that echo long-standing tropes, the most ancient of which is the libel of collective Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death.

Image 1

Image: Grow in Love, Junior infants. Veritas (2024). Page 39

In addition, to bolster these antisemitic issues, the curriculum includes a number of examples discussing Jesus’ origins in Palestine, rather than in Judea or the Galilee. A textbook for Grades 7-9 presents an example entitled “Where did Jesus live?” with the answer of “Palestine” provided below. However, this answer is anachronistic, as the term ‘Palestine’ evolved over centuries and did not exist at the time of Jesus; such usage can be exploited to undermine the Jewish historical connection to the land. While this anachronism does not itself violate the IHRA definition of antisemitism, it can inadvertently support narratives that distort or negate Jewish historical ties to the region, an issue the IHRA definition identifies as a potential form of antisemitism. Together, this antisemitic interpretation of Jesus’ death, as well as the erasure of Jewish history in the land of Judea, coalesce to demonstrate how even in the modern day, state signatories of the IHRA definition of antisemitism continue to perpetuate ancient libel. Education shapes how people understand and relate to one another, making the removal of such forms of hatred from the classroom critically important.

Poland:

Similarly to Ireland, antisemitism in Poland has risen in recent years, with 2024 recording a 67% rise in antisemitic incidents. This is underscored by comments from far-right Polish MP and MEP Grzegorz Braun, who stated in a radio interview that “ritual murder is a fact” and denied the existence of Auschwitz’s gas chambers, remarks that constitute Holocaust denial and revive medieval blood-libel accusations against Jews. Research conducted by the Center for Research on Prejudices reveals an increase in more traditional forms of antisemitism, including acceptance of blood libel, in Poland. In 2009, more than 13% of respondents agreed that Jews were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion, and by 2017, this percentage had risen by more than 10%.⁹Dominika Bulska and Mikołaj Winiewski, Powrót zabobonu: Antysemityzm w Polsce na podstawie Polskiego Sondażu Uprzedzeń 3 (Warsaw: Centrum Badań Nad Uprzedzeniami, 2017), 9, http://cbu.psychologia.pl/wp-content/uploads/sites/410/2021/02/Antysemityzm_PPS3_Bulska_fin.pdf.

In response to the surge in antisemitism since October 7  2023, the government has prepared a national strategy for fighting antisemitism for 2025-30, announced in early November this year by justice undersecretary Maria Ejchart. This new strategy is a positive development in countering antisemitism, yet will remain incomplete unless it incorporates concrete reforms to the education system, particularly given the systemic issues in how Jews are depicted in relation to the death of Jesus.

Polish textbooks present narratives that implicate Jews in the death of Jesus. As early as Grade 5, students encounter such claims in both history and Polish-language lessons, and these depictions persist throughout secondary education. Jesus is not presented as a figure rooted in Judaism, and no textbook explicitly states that he was Jewish. Instead, Jews are portrayed as a powerful group threatened by Jesus’ criticisms of their practices.

A Grade 5 History textbook presents Jews as merciless and fanatical, responsible for Jesus’ arrest and death. The text claims that they adhere strictly to religious law, while showing “no mercy toward others,” reflected in the direct role they played in Jesus’ death. The example also describes how the religion of Christianity “spread beyond Palestine,” anachronistically referring to the region of Jesus’ birth as Palestine, contributing to an erasure of Jewish history, in a manner similar to Ireland. For many centuries, these views formed the basis of antisemitism, rooted in early Christian prejudices and religious biases that led to systemic discrimination and persecution of Jews. Continuing to include such narratives in educational materials can have serious repercussions, perpetuating and reinforcing antisemitic attitudes among children and youth.

Image 2

Image: History Grade 5 textbook claiming Jews were responsible for Jesus’ arrest and subsequent sentence.

This theme is repeated in multiple textbooks for varying ages. As with Ireland, Poland is a signatory of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, meaning that this textbook content directly contradicts international agreements. This is particularly salient considering the devastation caused by the Holocaust in Poland, and the enduring presence of Auschwitz as a stark reminder of the consequences of unchecked antisemitism. The persistence of both ancient antisemitic tropes and the erasure of Jewish history in Judea contributes to a serious form of antisemitism in Poland. Yet, unlike Ireland, which continues to perpetuate such narratives with little consequence to date, Poland has taken initial steps to confront how these libels have become conventional wisdom through the new national strategy combatting antisemitism. Any meaningful reform must also encompass textbook revision to ensure that concepts that clearly contravene the IHRA definition of antisemitism are removed.

Nigeria:

Moving away from the European nations of Ireland and Poland, Nigeria presents a model of a nation with a large Christian population which deals differently with the presentation of Jesus and Judeo-Christian history in its education system. Although lesser known, Nigeria is home to the Igbo tribe, many of which are practicing Jews, and are believed to be the lost tribe of Gad. The tribe practice traditional Jewish rituals, such as the brit milah (circumcision) eight days after the birth of a boy, and observe kosher dietary laws, as well as celebrating the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Hannukah and Purim. Judaism has an enduring historical presence in Nigeria, making its approach to teaching Judeo-Christian history particularly noteworthy, especially as an African, non-IHRA-signatory country shaped by diverse Christian traditions.

The Nigerian curriculum contains some similar values to the above western nations, yet is much more positive in its portrayal of Judaism. In Christian Religious Studies textbooks, Jewish history is explored, including the Exodus from Egypt, and Jesus’ Jewish identity, via accounts of his teaching in synagogues. However, echoing elements found in the Irish and Polish curricula, one textbook describes Jesus’ trial by stating that the punishment for “this offence by the Jewish” was death. Although the “offence” referred to is the act of handing Jesus over to the Romans, not responsibility for the crucifixion itself, this phrasing still risks implying collective Jewish culpability and blurs the line between historical groups and present-day Jewry. However, more positively, the text explicitly distinguishes between handing Jesus over and killing him, thereby avoiding the deicide accusation that appears, implicitly or explicitly, in Irish and Polish materials. The text explains that Jews lacked the authority to execute Jesus and therefore handed him over to the Romans, an imperfect framing that implies they might have done so otherwise, yet it still clearly acknowledges that Jews did not kill him, marking a contrast with the more accusatory narratives in the Irish and Polish curricula. In this regard, despite certain ambiguities, the Nigerian curriculum ultimately provides a more accurate and less prejudicial account than its Western counterparts.

Image 3

Image: Essential Christian Religious Studies, Grades 10–12, (2023) p. 243.

While there is acknowledgment of Israel as a country in existence, there are anachronisms when discussing ancient Israel and Jesus. For example, a Christian Religious Studies textbook presents a “map of Palestine in the time of Christ,” labelling places mentioned in the story. Such anachronistic usage may confuse students and inadvertently obscure the Jewish historical presence in the land of Israel during that period. This reflects similar inaccuracies in Irish and Polish textbooks, which distort Jewish history in Judea by labeling the region “Palestine” during the time of Jesus, an anachronism that erases the historical context.

However, while there are some similarities in how the Nigerian, Polish, and Irish curricula depict Jews and the life and death of Jesus, a significant distinction remains; Nigeria is not a signatory to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, yet much of its curriculum presents Jewish history in a generally positive light and affirms Jesus’ Jewish identity, standing in contrast to the approaches found in Irish and Polish curricula. Although some materials contain problematic descriptions of Jesus’ death and occasional anachronistic references to “Palestine,” these appear to stem from factual inaccuracies rather than from a wider narrative drawing upon historic blood libel. Importantly, the curriculum does not employ tropes about Jewish power or the desire to maintain such power, nor motifs that draw on far more sinister antisemitic libels, as is found in its Polish and Irish counterparts. The explicit recognition of Jesus’ Jewish identity further highlights the nuance present in the Nigerian case, making its curriculum a far more palatable example, even though Nigeria is not a signatory to the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Sweden:

Having examined the shortcomings and libels present in the Irish and Polish curricula, as well as the example of Nigeria, it is instructive to turn to Sweden, where a markedly different approach emerges. The positive presentation of Judeo-Christian history in the Swedish model presents a potential for reflection for other European Christian countries and their relationship with and education on Judaism. As a Lutheran country, Sweden offers a model example of how to present Jews and the life and death of Jesus in an accurate and responsible way. This suggests that many of the problems observed in IHRA-signatory countries such as Ireland and Poland may stem from specific interpretive traditions of Christian history. Sweden, both a Christian country and a signatory to the IHRA definition, demonstrates that it is entirely possible for national curricula to depict Jewish history and the Jewish origins of Jesus in a balanced, respectful, and historically sound manner.

Swedish textbooks present Christianity as originating from Judaism, identifying Jesus and his earliest followers as Jews. Key figures in the early church, such as Peter, the first church leader, and Paul, the first apostle, are also referred to as Jews.

Each religious studies textbook for Grades 7–9 includes a dedicated section outlining Jewish history in the diaspora and the rise of antisemitism, spanning from 70 AD, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, to the present day. These materials address issues such as legal prohibitions on Jewish land ownership and the frequent scapegoating of Jews for societal crises, including accusations of well poisoning or responsibility for the Black Death in the 14th century. Such persecution led to the murder of thousands of Jews across Europe. The textbooks offer a comprehensive account of the diaspora and do not shy away from acknowledging that Christians persecuted Jews. For example, they highlight how Christians accused Jews of killing Jesus, a charge that significantly intensified Christian hostility toward Jewish communities. Not only are antisemitic libels absent from this curriculum, but it explicitly defines such libels and identifies their falsehoods, marking a sharp contrast with the Irish and Polish curricula.

Regarding references to Jesus’ birthplace, a History Grades 7-9 textbook describes how the Jewish people were “severely affected” by the Roman wars, and claims that present-day Israel was conquered by Roman armies in 63BCE, which was “later transformed” into the Roman province of Palestine. This highlights Jewish connection to the land of Israel, and their exile by the Roman empire; it also highlights the nuance of the region later becoming known as “Palestina,” around 2CE, after the birth of Jesus.

Image 4

Image: Gleerups History 7-9 (grades 7-9).

This represents an unusually nuanced and historically accurate treatment of the topic, standing in sharp contrast to the Polish and Irish curricula, which present Jesus’ life and death in ways that distort Jewish history. While Nigeria, as a Christian country, offers a somewhat more positive depiction of Judaism than its European counterparts, Sweden serves as a model example of how a Christian nation can teach Christian history without distorting Jewish history or lending credence to antisemitic libels. The Swedish model underscores how educational frameworks in Ireland and Poland could benefit from re-examining their treatment of Christian history and integrating approaches that avoid historical distortion and antisemitic tropes.

Conclusion:

As the 2026 ten-year anniversary of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism approaches, the findings of this analysis illuminate a clear path forward for countries grappling with deeply rooted antisemitic narratives in their educational systems. Ireland and Poland, both IHRA signatories, continue to reproduce versions of Christian history that not only distort the Jewish origins of Jesus but also revive ancient libels that the IHRA definition explicitly rejects. Ireland, in particular, appears to be lacking in meaningful reform, sustaining narratives that shape children’s earliest understandings of Jews through the lens of betrayal and collective guilt.

Yet, the comparative cases examined here show that this trajectory is neither universal nor inevitable. Nigeria, despite not being an IHRA signatory, integrates Jewish history into its Christian curriculum with greater nuance, openly acknowledging Jesus’ Jewish identity, an omission strikingly persistent in Irish and Polish materials. Sweden goes further still, demonstrating how a Christian country can teach the life and death of Jesus in a manner that is historically rigorous, fully cognisant of Jewish history, and conscious of the dangers of antisemitic tropes. The Swedish model proves that peaceful and tolerant Christian education is not only possible, but already practised within Europe.

These examples provide the building blocks for meaningful change. Ireland must follow Poland in acknowledging the problem; Poland must follow Sweden in reforming its curriculum; and educational frameworks must look beyond their own traditions to models that avoid perpetuating the very libels that have fuelled centuries of Christian antisemitism. The persistence of these narratives is not inherent to Christianity itself, but may reflect choices made within particular interpretive traditions.

The manner in which Poland and Ireland engage with Christian history and their relationship with Jews requires serious re-examination; the prevailing discourse appears markedly out of step with contemporary western values. If IHRA signatories are to take their commitments seriously, classroom materials must reflect those commitments. Removing antisemitic libels from the education of young children is not only a matter of historical accuracy, but also essential to ensuring that the next generation does not inherit the prejudices of the past.