Is Chaucer anti-Semitic?

Considering whether Chaucer himself was anti-Semitic or not seems somewhat irrelevant to the actual literature and examining the text for itself; yet, the question haunts any reader who reads the Prioress’s tale, not just because we want a respected and admired literary figure to have a morality we find acceptable, but because his intent seems so important in framing an interpretation of the tale. Thus we try to divine from the text Chaucer’s own feelings on the matter, sure he must have some personal motive in telling a story like this. This was my first reaction, but upon further thought, I find it hard to believe that a poet and artist as skilled as Chaucer, and one who so obviously thought about and experimented with narratorial techniques, would position anti-Semitism in his work simply because he felt it. That’s not to say he wasn’t anti-Semitic, only that the anti-Semitism in this work might have a more literary purpose than just anti-Semitism for anti-Semitism’s sake, especially considering that it comes from the mouth of the Prioress, whom we have all already noted that the narrator treated with subtly ironic criticism in the Prologue.
Because we already know from the Prologue that the Prioress is a hypocrite and someone concerned more with the appearance of goodness and propriety than its substance, we can suspect her story of ringing false on some level. While I agree with Christen and Carlos that the irony in this tale is much less evident through a line-by-line analysis, I think the general ridiculousness and constant hyperbole of the tale lend themselves to a reading which places distance between Chaucer & his narrator and the Prioress. By general ridiculousness I mean the incredibly, overly pious little boy, the “Jewerye” whose only purpose is “foul usure and lucre of vileinye,” and the dead boy singing from a latrine. Aside from just the overall, seemingly exaggerated storyline, a few details also seemed off-key to me. The fact that the child sings “thurghout the Juerie” seems pretty obviously disrespectful and just obnoxious; while I know medieval people did not have our ideas about tolerance, I think the offensiveness of this behavior would be apparent to them. Also, the dead boy singing with his throat cut, which was supposed to be miraculous, had a sinister not that was hard to ignore. The phenomenon seemed more hellish than heavenly, especially when we learn toward the end of the story that Mary has enforced this uncomfortable life-after-death upon him because “Jesu Crist, as ye in bokes finde,/ wol that his glorye laste and be in minde,/ and for the worship of his moder deere” (652-654). So basically, because Mary and Jesus want glory, they grant this little kid the “boon” of getting his throat slit and then still being able to sing about them afterward. Lucky kid. I also thought there was something off about the abbot, whom the prioress twice hesitates in describing as “holy.” Perhaps he is holy in the same way the Prioress is courteous: in appearance only. In conclusion, I think it's possible that Chaucer may be trying to criticize the Prioress, her values, and maybe even the burgeoning popular narrative about evil Jews.