No, I wouldn’t say that.
Early Christianity wasn’t a unified culture, but mixed all over the place; even during the creation of the texts (not just the Gospels).
Even when Christianity began its orthodoxy era, Jews weren’t really part of the focus. At that time the focus was more on rival factions of other Christians as the theology hadn’t yet been refined into even what each faction held, let alone who would be the central authority (which was only up for grabs because the Church of Jerusalem had fallen apart during the destruction of the second Temple, thereby leaving Paul’s claim to authority unchecked from thereon, which in itself was short-lived thereafter the Temple destruction).
The proto-orthodox Christian communities weren’t really concerned with Jews, as mentioned, either.
They were a bit too busy focusing on these new theologies and various texts each community held as special and valuable, and which texts were valued was not a clean line, but instead scattered and heavily diverse in both text and theology.
Keep in mind that we’re talking about a spread of small groupings spanning from the Levant region to Turkey (today), Asia Minor, the Balkan and Italian peninsulas, and the Egyptian northern coastline with no real focal point of central authority or collective theology.
The closest thing you can get in this era is when the Jews within the Mediterranean (mostly) had their issues with the new Christians (not called that then) in regards to trust; there was early debate whether these new interests were interested in the Law earnestly, or were going to take the Jewish academic help and twist it into something else (clearly the something else route is what happened).
Aside from that, if you squint your eyes and put on some special glasses, then you can read Galatians to be antisemitic, but it wasn’t.
It wasn’t antisemitic, but instead, Paul being angry over losing unilateral authority to Jews coming into the region Paul had already been granted “authority” over due to the region being Gentiles (well…more like, Paul took it as authority whether James intended that or not is somewhat of a debate; it could be argued that James more or less grew tired of Paul and told him to do whatever he wants with Gentiles, but that may not have implied direct grant of authority in James’ mind).
So really; the real strong Christian antisemitic culture did begin roughly with the Crusade culture.
Keep in mind, too, that the Crusade culture was a culture developed in Europe following the fall of Rome; when suddenly there was this huge gap for default ruling power and a bunch of scattered cultures in Europe were attempting to unify (unify each separate culture unto itself; not with each other) and build up to become the next big empire, or at least more than they had been.
With Rome gone, all bets were off on which culture could attack which culture, as there was no “United States” world police called Rome.
This is when the “Holy Roman Empire” really got into the shape we are more familiar with, but this is also how it became the central agency in a sort of “UN” of Europe; they had power, and could side with various groups as became an advantage, and would grant the holy blessings, which were more like UN sanctions than any theological decree, though they used theological arguments; such arguments were the legal tender of the time…I think that is often overlooked by many looking back over history.
This is why you have schisms later on; because others wanted their own council to agree with them when they found their culture at the bottom end of the political stick with the Holy Roman politics regarding the nations of Europe.
This is where the Crusades come in; they come in after a small boom that was followed by a lull…think of it like the Dark Age’s Iraq war.
It’s a very common practice that we see repeated in history; when the economy falters, pick a scapegoat, target them, demonize them out of their humanity, and then go to war citing liberation and solidarity of some kind; even though almost no one else around at any of these instance’s times would agree with the “liberation” portion.
If all goes well, boom, economic boost; or at least that’s the myth…looking over history, we can see this rarely ends up resulting in the actual economic stability in the long run. It just usually gives a minor temporal boost for a select demographic of the society with no real effective gainful difference to the mass majority of the culture’s population.
In a way, this is where Hitler was a bit different; Hitler took this same theory and ran with it and did accomplish a gainful difference to the mass majority, but that enjoyed difference came at a heavy cost of intellectual freedom and that heavily impacted their academic culture’s flexible articulation; ergo why there was such an exodus even before the Jewish oppression began to really get going.
Not only did it come at a heavy cost, but it also showed that even when there is an improvement to the mass majority, such improvement from such war activity and scapegoating only sustains for a limited amount of time; that eventually, even without the Jewish genocide and losing the war (let’s imagine those two things didn’t happen for a moment), the economy really begins to buckle and fall.
In a sense, such political behavior is a form of temporary stimulus in which the aftermath of the expenses seems to always catch up and nearly bankrupt the given culture in each case (Egypt, China, Japan, Germany, U.S., etc…).