It's inherent to orthodox Christianity. Just look at the Gospel of John, the Jews are constantly maligned within that Gospel . John uses "the Jews" as a blanket term and "the Jews" are protrayed as villianous, Satanic persecutors of Jesus who go out of their way to obstruct Jesus' mission and later plot to murder him. In fact in John's gospel the heat is taken off the Pilate and "the Jews" are solely to blame for Jesus execution.
It isn't inherent to orthodox Christianity. To say so, ignores all of the progressive that has been undergone since the Holocaust. It was after this, that many scholars, theologians, etc began reexamining Jewish Christian relations, and worked to better the situation. The Vatican II made huge strides in officially changing any and all negative outlooks on Judaism. In fact, they the hatred, persecution, etc of Jews in general was spoken against.
Since Vatican II, more strides have been made for better relations between Jews and Christians. And this is not true just in the Catholic Church (which would be orthodox Christianity), but in much of Christianity.
Now looking at the Gospel of John, one has to take it in a historical context. JacobEzra and I don't agree on much, but we agree on the basics here. First, Jesus and the apostles were Jews. The NT as a whole agrees on that. Jesus is shown as a Jew, under Judaism. Paul is also shown as a Jew, under Judaism.
Second, when examining the NT, or more specifically, the Gospels, we see that as a whole, they criticize the Pharisees the most (and possibly the scribes). Yes, they use the blanket term "the Jews" from time to time, but taking it as a whole, it is probably best to assume they are talking about the Pharisees (otherwise, they would also be talking about themselves, at least to a point, as well as Jesus and the disciples). We can assume this as over and over again, the Pharisees (and scribes) are singled out as the Jews. They are the ones who have the largest conflicts here (the Sadducees also come into play, but to a lesser extent). The vast majority of Jews are never mentioned. The Essenes are never mentioned, and the vast majority of Jews, who were not scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes, are also not mentioned. Instead, we see specific groups being singled out, and in particular, the Pharisees being singled out.
There is a good reason as to why the Pharisees were being singled out. By the time that the Gospel John was written, Judaism had underwent a massive change. With the destruction of the Temple, a massive change occurred. Seeing that the Temple played a great role in the religion, and that the religion can be said to have revolved around the Temple, the loss was horrible. Emerging from this loss, this disaster, we have only two forms of Judaism that really survived. The first are the Pharisees, which will be the Rabbinic Judaism. The second is Christianity, which still had not really fully split.
At this time, Rabbinic Judaism began centralizing Judaism. Instead of having many different sects, they wanted one. This was in part to make them stronger, more unified. It was a partially a survival thing. It also pushed Christianity away, and made the rift between the two larger. Christianity can be said to have become some sort of a Jewish heresy. At the same time, Christianity also pushed back. We see attacks from both sides, and it got somewhat nasty on both parts.
Now, many think that the author of the Gospel of John was in a Jewish-Christian community that was being shunned. In return, they were angered, and attacked back (specifically the Pharisees, who became the Rabbinic Judaism).
At the same time, the Gospels, and later writers (the farther you go from the event in time, the more this occurs), took the blame from Pilate (and Rome in general), and placed it on their rising enemy, Rabbinic Judaism. This was for a couple of reasons. After the First Jewish Revolt, it would have made little sense to demonize Rome (including Pilate) and worship an enemy of the state (Jesus). That would have painted a huge target on them. So they continually push the blame away from Pilate, and move it onto their new enemies. It was a strategic move. The Jews were already in a hard place; as they just revolted. The Christians worshipped a man killed as an enemy of the state, and they tried to play that off and say that it was the Jews who were responsible (it was an ideal group to blame it on as they just revolted, and they were attacking the Christians as well).
Basically, the whole ordeal is a lot more complicated then you make it appear.
it's just quagmire being a troll, or involuntary comedy. ("what school did you go to?" bwhaha)
