The Bitterness of John
To go along with the sermony thing published on my other blog, I thought I might put in an essay from the third year of my degree here. As you may see (or you might not bother) quite a lot of material from this essay seemed to be relevant to my talk.
---------------------------
How much does John’s Gospel reflect bitterness between Christians and Jews towards the end of the first century?
Introduction
There is wide agreement that John’s[1] gospel is, to some extent, polemical but why is that? Is it because “the Jews” were objectively evil, or is there something about the situation from which the author writes that colours his portrayal of them? The first step to answering this question will be to try to establish who is meant by the designation “the Jews”. Having answered this I shall consider some of the characteristics attributed to “the Jews” in the fourth gospel and in turn assess the historicity of their depiction with particular interest to how each depiction may relate to the situation of the author. Finally I shall consider the distinctive Christology of the author and consider how that may have played a role in the deteriorating relations between Jews and Christians.
The Identity of “The Jews” in the Fourth Gospel
In John, Jesus’ opponents are most often defined as “the Jews”. Hence, it seems only proper to first establish who it is that John is talking about when he uses this term. The designation “the Jews” does not simply denote ethnic Jews, not all Jews are portrayed as Jesus’ enemies. There is no attempt to hide the fact that Jesus is himself a Jew (4:9) and Jesus has friends (apart from his disciples) such as Lazarus and his sisters who also appear to be Jews (11:1). Furthermore, Nathanael is called a “true Israelite”, which is certainly meant as a compliment.
Therefore, the question is, ‘who exactly is the evangelist talking about when he says “the Jews”?’ It is too simplistic to say that “the Jews” refers only to the leaders of Israel as some have argued[2] because the term seems to be used in a more general sense on some occasions (6:52-59; 7:14-20) although it does often appear designate a group separate from the people at large (7:11-12; 9:13-22). Similarly, Malcome Lowe’s suggestion that oi Ioudaioi should be translated “the Judeans”,[3] although in some cases valid (1:19; 11:7-8), does not fully fit the data as “the Jews” seem to be present in Capernaum (6:41-59). Moreover, Lazarus and his sisters appear to be Judeans (11:1). Moloney asserts that they are “those characters in the story who have made up their minds about Jesus… (Who are) passionately committed to the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah”.[4] Yet, this is not sufficiently precise, some people identified as “the Jews” do not seem to be committed to such a view; (8:31; 10:19) even the Pharisees are sometimes divided (9:16). Perhaps this could be refined by saying that “the Jews” in John are those who, in the final analysis, do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, while bearing in mind that this relates primarily but not exclusively to the chief priests and the Pharisees of Judea. These are the forerunners of those, who at the time of John’s gospel have expelled the Christians from the synagogues. Thus, any bitterness between Jews and Christians detected in John is really between Christians and mainstream Judaism, which has rejected Jesus and his followers.
Defining Characteristics
John consistently portrays “the Jews” as Jesus’ enemies and by extension, this makes them God’s enemies. Nowhere is this clearer than in 8:44 where Jesus tells a group of Jews that they are “children of the devil”. There are a number of features in John’s depiction of “the Jews” that show them to be disreputable. The emphasis and historicity, or otherwise, of these features may reveal something of the author’s intent.
1. “The Jews” seek a Messiah but not one like Jesus
On their debut it seems that “the Jews” are seeking the Messiah expectantly. (1:19-21) John strengthens this impression in 5:43 and 10:24. Despite this expectation, they still reject Jesus. Their rejection of Jesus does not seem to be based on any messianic claims so much as his claims to divinity and the fact that he healed on the Sabbath. (5:16-18; 6:41; 7:23; 8:58-59; 10:30-33)
The saying of 5:43 is worth further consideration. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. If Jesus really did say this then the most obvious candidate for the one who ‘comes in his own name’ is Bar Kochba who is depicted on coins as the “Prince of Israel” and led the rebellion against Rome which ended in defeat. Bar Kochba also had support from the well known rabbi Akiba who called him “king Messiah”.[5] However, this revolt is thought to have taken place later than the time of John[6] so he, at least, would not have had Bar Kochba in mind. Matthew and Mark both have similar sayings in which Jesus privately warns his disciples of “false messiahs” who will come in his (Jesus) name.[7] It seems likely that John has adapted the same saying and put it into a combative context here. Josephus writes of many false messiahs arising before AD 70,[8] who led “the Jews” into battle against Rome.[9] Thus, John expresses bitter disappointment with “the Jews” who, for the most part,[10] followed these false messiahs but failed to believe the real one.
2. Others Believe but “The Jews” do not
Various marginal people, who encounter Jesus, unexpectedly believe more readily than do “the Jews”. First, many of the hated Samaritans come to him and believe. (4:39-42) Then, the Galileans, those from his own country “where a prophet has no honour” welcome him. (4:44-45)[11] The Galileans also appear to be despised by certain other Jews. (1:46; 7:41; 7:52) Third comes the ‘royal official’ who after the healing of his son comes to believe, along with the rest of his family; he was probably not an exemplary Jew;[12] possibly even a Roman[13]. (4:46-53) These accounts are clustered together and are probably so arranged to make a point. In my view, the point is that “the Jews” ought to be ashamed that these less religious people recognised the Messiah whom they condemned.
3. The Jewish Authorities are Ripe for Parody
John appears to employ satire occasionally, to make fools of his opponents. The man born blind impudently asks the Pharisees, Do you also want to become his disciples? (9:27) He further embarrasses them by appealing to reason and is not intimidated by them, the Pharisees have no answer and can only respond with slander. (9:28-34) The effect is to caricature the Pharisees as bullies who refuse to believe. That is very much what John aims to do and so it seems reasonable to say that John gives the man lines that express his own view. This is very much the art of the gospel author, he tells of a real event and imaginatively fills in details to create a narrative. Blomberg argues against this maintaining that the man’s logic is flawed because he sees the miraculous sign as proof that Jesus is from God.[14] However, the point is not to hold up this man as a “model debater” but rather to make a mockery of the Pharisees; even this man could outwit them. Moreover, this miracle is a particularly special one it surpasses anything seen before. (v.32) Therefore, it might be seen as a valid proof.
Perhaps the greatest satire is that of the high priest Caiaphas. The principal representative of “the Jews”, who unwittingly prophesies, and the words of his prophecy articulate the essence of the Gospel; that one man died for many. (11:50-51) What comes before this is just as interesting. An anonymous leader declares, If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation. (11:48) The irony is that although they seemingly stopped Jesus the true messiah, many false messiahs came afterwards and the Pharisee’s prediction came true, the Romans did destroy the temple. John is, no doubt, writing with knowledge of this. There is evidence of such a meeting in the synoptics (Mt.26:3-4, Mk.14:1-2; Lk.22:1-2) and it looks like the author has taken the same tradition and artfully embellished it.
There are many things that militate against the historicity of the details of the meeting. Firstly, Caiaphas is said to have been high priest “that year” as if he were in office for just one year. It is known that Caiaphas was high priest for eighteen years. Some argue that, “that year” should be understood, “that fateful year”.[15] This is certainly a valid reading but when it is considered that in contemporary pagan tradition the high priest was in office for just one year it looks doubtful. Secondly, one may ask how the evangelist knows about the contents of this private meeting that the synoptists writing closer to the time do not know about. Blomberg counters that friendly members of the Sanhedren such as Nicodemus may have leaked the information but the question remains, why do the other gospels not know about this? Thirdly, verse 53 says that from that day on they plotted to kill Jesus even though there are many reports of “the Jews” trying to kill Jesus earlier on. (5:18; 7:1; 7:25; 8:59; 10:31) Finally, the “prophetic” response of Caiaphas to the other man’s prediction seems odd and artificial. He starts by telling him that he knows nothing, (49) which is natural enough as a rude riposte but then he proceeds with his prediction, which does not actually contradict the other man’s prediction, if anything it adds to it. This may be explained by saying that the first prediction is drawn from a source and the second is redactional and although the two predictions compliment each other the author feels the need to show Caiaphas as a rude and arrogant man. Thus, John is prepared to create “history” in order to ridicule the Jewish high priest.
4. “The Jews” are not True Israelites
Nathanael is thus described, ‘truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!’ (1:47) The fact that Jesus should make such an exclamation seems to imply that Nathanael is exceptional and that others are not true Israelites, they are duplicitous. As Carson puts it, Nathanael is ‘an “Israel” not a “Jacob”’.[16] In his exchanges with “the Jews”, Jesus accuses them of not believing Moses, (5:46) and goes so far as to say that none of them keep the law. (7:19) A little later, while acknowledging that they are ‘descendants of Abraham’ (8:37) Jesus claims that the Jews are actually “from their father the Devil”. In the light of the encounter with Nathanael, the implication is that “the Jews” are the children of Jacob, not of Israel. 7:26 and 8:55 support this too, with the implication that “the Jews” are dishonest. Speaking to his own generation, John is saying that those remaining in mainstream Judaism are not the true Israelites but the Christians are.
The discourse of 8:31-59 is very odd. It appears that Jesus is speaking to believers (v.31) but he soon accuses them of trying to kill him. (v.37) Carson explains it by saying that the evangelist is showing up the fickleness of the “believers”.[17] However, it is difficult to blame these believers for being fickle when their leader turns around and accuses them of trying to kill him. They may not have been the most devoted followers but they certainly would have been cordial. It seems that Carson’s view of scripture is higher than his view of Christ, for such a view makes Christ a paranoid maniac. Blomberg, following Motyer, asserts that the believers were not the only ones present; Jesus’ polemic is actually addressed to non-believers who happen to be present.[18] The trouble is, the text says that Jesus is addressing believers; Blomberg’s interpretation implies that the text is misleading which undermines his purpose, that is, to defend the historicity of the text.
More interesting is Dodd’s theory that these “believers” represent Judaizing Christians contemporary to John akin to those whom Paul came up against. (Gal. 1:6-9)[19] On such a view the freedom of verse 37 could be seen as freedom from the law, (particularly circumcision) and the accusation that they are trying to kill Jesus could be seen as the damage done to the Gospel by Judaizers. Abraham first received circumcision, (Gen. 17:10) so the Judaizers may well feel that they are following being faithful to him by carrying on the tradition into the new covenant but Jesus tells them on John’s behalf that this is the wrong thing to do. However, other parts of the dialogue are more difficult to reconcile with this view. It is difficult to imagine Jewish Christians being so incensed by Jesus’ claim to divinity as to stone him (58-59) or to say that the man whom they have accepted as the Messiah is “demon possessed”. Thus, probably the best explanation for the oddness of this discourse is to see 30-31 as an editorial error. In order to break up a long dialogue, containing what Brown terms, “miscellaneous discourses”[20] an editor has inserted 30-31a, which do fit well with 31b-32. Unfortunately, they do not fit the wider context. Therefore, the chapter would seem to be a collection of sayings that is given a context in a confrontational dialogue with the Jews, and the characterisation of the Jews as “children of the Devil” is redactional.
5. The Jews are Tyrannical
A subject that comes up several times in John is, the “fear of the Jews”. (7:13; 12:42; 19:38; 20:19) One of the chief fears expressed is that anyone confessing Jesus will be put out of the synagogue. (9:13; 12:42; 16:2) Many regard this as anachronistic it is thought that this was not happening in Jesus' time, though it most likely was in the time when John was written. Blomberg argues that before any kind of policy was formalised at the council of Jamnia in around AD 85 local gatherings may have expelled Christians.[21] (16:2) Blomberg also maintains “the synoptic Jesus predicted synagogue expulsion for his followers”, but the references he gives to support this are tenuous. (Lk. 12:8-9; Mk. 8:37; Lk. 6:22-23)[22] It is certainly possible however, that there were localised synagogue expulsions before any formal policy was made but one may ask, why does Jesus prophesy the same later if it was already happening? (16:2) Furthermore, a key scene in each of the synoptics is the moment of recognition when Peter proclaims, “You are the Messiah.” (Mt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29; Lk. 9:20) The relevance of this is that others do not say that Jesus is the Christ. (Mt. 16:14; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 9:19)
It seems logical, that the so-called “blessing against the heretics” (Council of Jamnia AD 85 when Christians are thought to have been officially expelled from the synagogues, and left exposed to brutal Roman persecution with no protection) would be just the kind of thing that might provoke a polemic such as the one against the Jews in John. It also seems most likely that such a policy would be formalised at a council such as Jamnia. This does not rule-out the possibility of localised expulsions but these probably would not spark such a polemic. A formal declaration of the “blessing against heretics” on the other hand, would be equivalent to a declaration of war.
Considering the time when John’s gospel was written[23] it is remarkable that the Romans are not demonised. Revelation, from perhaps a similar time, is (arguably) largely a polemic against Rome. (Rev. 17:9-11) On the contrary, in John, Pilate is reluctant to punish Jesus, as he is in the other gospels. So why are the Romans excused but not the Jews? It may be that Christians did not expect anything better than persecution from the Romans but when the Jews turned on them there was a deep sense of betrayal. The community within which Christianity was born spewed out the church and despised it.
Christology
Central to John’s gospel is his distinctive Christology. It is well established that in John’s gospel the veiled Christological statements of the synoptics become more explicit. (4:26; 8:12; 8:58; 10:38) Just as these messianic claims that cause “the Jews” to aggressively oppose Jesus in the gospel, so, according to Hurtado, it is the Johannine community’s explicit high Christology that proved to be “intolerable” for the Jews.[24]
Conclusion
How much does John’s Gospel reflect bitterness between Christians and Jews towards the end of the first century? If everything in John’s gospel were completely historically accurate, one would find a certain amount of bitterness towards “The Jews” because of the way some things are emphasised. However, in my Judgment, the evangelist has largely used his sources in such a way as to recast the life of Christ into an ongoing conflict with “the Jews”. This conflict is a reflection of the conflict that led to the separation of the Christian sect from mainstream Judaism. In the gospel, Jesus singularly personifies the rejected church of John’s generation and “the Jews” those who still do not accept Jesus. “The Jews” seemingly gain victory by killing Jesus, just as they do by expelling Christians from their gatherings. However, Jesus is victorious over death and this gives hope to those rejected ones. History has shown that the rejected ones like Jesus were ‘resurrected’ and became stronger than their oppressors. The author did not know that this would happen but he may have hoped thus.
Such is the polemic against “the Jews”, that resentment towards them must have been one of the key motivational factors in writing the gospel. The author is not only prepared to rewrite history, reordering events and putting words in the mouths of his enemies to make them look foolish or dishonest, but also to put words into Jesus’ mouth in order to express his bitter resentment towards “the Jews”. Ironically, the servant and master relationship is reversed through John’s narration, Jesus can only do and say what the author allows him.
Introduction
There is wide agreement that John’s[1] gospel is, to some extent, polemical but why is that? Is it because “the Jews” were objectively evil, or is there something about the situation from which the author writes that colours his portrayal of them? The first step to answering this question will be to try to establish who is meant by the designation “the Jews”. Having answered this I shall consider some of the characteristics attributed to “the Jews” in the fourth gospel and in turn assess the historicity of their depiction with particular interest to how each depiction may relate to the situation of the author. Finally I shall consider the distinctive Christology of the author and consider how that may have played a role in the deteriorating relations between Jews and Christians.
The Identity of “The Jews” in the Fourth Gospel
In John, Jesus’ opponents are most often defined as “the Jews”. Hence, it seems only proper to first establish who it is that John is talking about when he uses this term. The designation “the Jews” does not simply denote ethnic Jews, not all Jews are portrayed as Jesus’ enemies. There is no attempt to hide the fact that Jesus is himself a Jew (4:9) and Jesus has friends (apart from his disciples) such as Lazarus and his sisters who also appear to be Jews (11:1). Furthermore, Nathanael is called a “true Israelite”, which is certainly meant as a compliment.
Therefore, the question is, ‘who exactly is the evangelist talking about when he says “the Jews”?’ It is too simplistic to say that “the Jews” refers only to the leaders of Israel as some have argued[2] because the term seems to be used in a more general sense on some occasions (6:52-59; 7:14-20) although it does often appear designate a group separate from the people at large (7:11-12; 9:13-22). Similarly, Malcome Lowe’s suggestion that oi Ioudaioi should be translated “the Judeans”,[3] although in some cases valid (1:19; 11:7-8), does not fully fit the data as “the Jews” seem to be present in Capernaum (6:41-59). Moreover, Lazarus and his sisters appear to be Judeans (11:1). Moloney asserts that they are “those characters in the story who have made up their minds about Jesus… (Who are) passionately committed to the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah”.[4] Yet, this is not sufficiently precise, some people identified as “the Jews” do not seem to be committed to such a view; (8:31; 10:19) even the Pharisees are sometimes divided (9:16). Perhaps this could be refined by saying that “the Jews” in John are those who, in the final analysis, do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, while bearing in mind that this relates primarily but not exclusively to the chief priests and the Pharisees of Judea. These are the forerunners of those, who at the time of John’s gospel have expelled the Christians from the synagogues. Thus, any bitterness between Jews and Christians detected in John is really between Christians and mainstream Judaism, which has rejected Jesus and his followers.
Defining Characteristics
John consistently portrays “the Jews” as Jesus’ enemies and by extension, this makes them God’s enemies. Nowhere is this clearer than in 8:44 where Jesus tells a group of Jews that they are “children of the devil”. There are a number of features in John’s depiction of “the Jews” that show them to be disreputable. The emphasis and historicity, or otherwise, of these features may reveal something of the author’s intent.
1. “The Jews” seek a Messiah but not one like Jesus
On their debut it seems that “the Jews” are seeking the Messiah expectantly. (1:19-21) John strengthens this impression in 5:43 and 10:24. Despite this expectation, they still reject Jesus. Their rejection of Jesus does not seem to be based on any messianic claims so much as his claims to divinity and the fact that he healed on the Sabbath. (5:16-18; 6:41; 7:23; 8:58-59; 10:30-33)
The saying of 5:43 is worth further consideration. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. If Jesus really did say this then the most obvious candidate for the one who ‘comes in his own name’ is Bar Kochba who is depicted on coins as the “Prince of Israel” and led the rebellion against Rome which ended in defeat. Bar Kochba also had support from the well known rabbi Akiba who called him “king Messiah”.[5] However, this revolt is thought to have taken place later than the time of John[6] so he, at least, would not have had Bar Kochba in mind. Matthew and Mark both have similar sayings in which Jesus privately warns his disciples of “false messiahs” who will come in his (Jesus) name.[7] It seems likely that John has adapted the same saying and put it into a combative context here. Josephus writes of many false messiahs arising before AD 70,[8] who led “the Jews” into battle against Rome.[9] Thus, John expresses bitter disappointment with “the Jews” who, for the most part,[10] followed these false messiahs but failed to believe the real one.
2. Others Believe but “The Jews” do not
Various marginal people, who encounter Jesus, unexpectedly believe more readily than do “the Jews”. First, many of the hated Samaritans come to him and believe. (4:39-42) Then, the Galileans, those from his own country “where a prophet has no honour” welcome him. (4:44-45)[11] The Galileans also appear to be despised by certain other Jews. (1:46; 7:41; 7:52) Third comes the ‘royal official’ who after the healing of his son comes to believe, along with the rest of his family; he was probably not an exemplary Jew;[12] possibly even a Roman[13]. (4:46-53) These accounts are clustered together and are probably so arranged to make a point. In my view, the point is that “the Jews” ought to be ashamed that these less religious people recognised the Messiah whom they condemned.
3. The Jewish Authorities are Ripe for Parody
John appears to employ satire occasionally, to make fools of his opponents. The man born blind impudently asks the Pharisees, Do you also want to become his disciples? (9:27) He further embarrasses them by appealing to reason and is not intimidated by them, the Pharisees have no answer and can only respond with slander. (9:28-34) The effect is to caricature the Pharisees as bullies who refuse to believe. That is very much what John aims to do and so it seems reasonable to say that John gives the man lines that express his own view. This is very much the art of the gospel author, he tells of a real event and imaginatively fills in details to create a narrative. Blomberg argues against this maintaining that the man’s logic is flawed because he sees the miraculous sign as proof that Jesus is from God.[14] However, the point is not to hold up this man as a “model debater” but rather to make a mockery of the Pharisees; even this man could outwit them. Moreover, this miracle is a particularly special one it surpasses anything seen before. (v.32) Therefore, it might be seen as a valid proof.
Perhaps the greatest satire is that of the high priest Caiaphas. The principal representative of “the Jews”, who unwittingly prophesies, and the words of his prophecy articulate the essence of the Gospel; that one man died for many. (11:50-51) What comes before this is just as interesting. An anonymous leader declares, If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation. (11:48) The irony is that although they seemingly stopped Jesus the true messiah, many false messiahs came afterwards and the Pharisee’s prediction came true, the Romans did destroy the temple. John is, no doubt, writing with knowledge of this. There is evidence of such a meeting in the synoptics (Mt.26:3-4, Mk.14:1-2; Lk.22:1-2) and it looks like the author has taken the same tradition and artfully embellished it.
There are many things that militate against the historicity of the details of the meeting. Firstly, Caiaphas is said to have been high priest “that year” as if he were in office for just one year. It is known that Caiaphas was high priest for eighteen years. Some argue that, “that year” should be understood, “that fateful year”.[15] This is certainly a valid reading but when it is considered that in contemporary pagan tradition the high priest was in office for just one year it looks doubtful. Secondly, one may ask how the evangelist knows about the contents of this private meeting that the synoptists writing closer to the time do not know about. Blomberg counters that friendly members of the Sanhedren such as Nicodemus may have leaked the information but the question remains, why do the other gospels not know about this? Thirdly, verse 53 says that from that day on they plotted to kill Jesus even though there are many reports of “the Jews” trying to kill Jesus earlier on. (5:18; 7:1; 7:25; 8:59; 10:31) Finally, the “prophetic” response of Caiaphas to the other man’s prediction seems odd and artificial. He starts by telling him that he knows nothing, (49) which is natural enough as a rude riposte but then he proceeds with his prediction, which does not actually contradict the other man’s prediction, if anything it adds to it. This may be explained by saying that the first prediction is drawn from a source and the second is redactional and although the two predictions compliment each other the author feels the need to show Caiaphas as a rude and arrogant man. Thus, John is prepared to create “history” in order to ridicule the Jewish high priest.
4. “The Jews” are not True Israelites
Nathanael is thus described, ‘truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!’ (1:47) The fact that Jesus should make such an exclamation seems to imply that Nathanael is exceptional and that others are not true Israelites, they are duplicitous. As Carson puts it, Nathanael is ‘an “Israel” not a “Jacob”’.[16] In his exchanges with “the Jews”, Jesus accuses them of not believing Moses, (5:46) and goes so far as to say that none of them keep the law. (7:19) A little later, while acknowledging that they are ‘descendants of Abraham’ (8:37) Jesus claims that the Jews are actually “from their father the Devil”. In the light of the encounter with Nathanael, the implication is that “the Jews” are the children of Jacob, not of Israel. 7:26 and 8:55 support this too, with the implication that “the Jews” are dishonest. Speaking to his own generation, John is saying that those remaining in mainstream Judaism are not the true Israelites but the Christians are.
The discourse of 8:31-59 is very odd. It appears that Jesus is speaking to believers (v.31) but he soon accuses them of trying to kill him. (v.37) Carson explains it by saying that the evangelist is showing up the fickleness of the “believers”.[17] However, it is difficult to blame these believers for being fickle when their leader turns around and accuses them of trying to kill him. They may not have been the most devoted followers but they certainly would have been cordial. It seems that Carson’s view of scripture is higher than his view of Christ, for such a view makes Christ a paranoid maniac. Blomberg, following Motyer, asserts that the believers were not the only ones present; Jesus’ polemic is actually addressed to non-believers who happen to be present.[18] The trouble is, the text says that Jesus is addressing believers; Blomberg’s interpretation implies that the text is misleading which undermines his purpose, that is, to defend the historicity of the text.
More interesting is Dodd’s theory that these “believers” represent Judaizing Christians contemporary to John akin to those whom Paul came up against. (Gal. 1:6-9)[19] On such a view the freedom of verse 37 could be seen as freedom from the law, (particularly circumcision) and the accusation that they are trying to kill Jesus could be seen as the damage done to the Gospel by Judaizers. Abraham first received circumcision, (Gen. 17:10) so the Judaizers may well feel that they are following being faithful to him by carrying on the tradition into the new covenant but Jesus tells them on John’s behalf that this is the wrong thing to do. However, other parts of the dialogue are more difficult to reconcile with this view. It is difficult to imagine Jewish Christians being so incensed by Jesus’ claim to divinity as to stone him (58-59) or to say that the man whom they have accepted as the Messiah is “demon possessed”. Thus, probably the best explanation for the oddness of this discourse is to see 30-31 as an editorial error. In order to break up a long dialogue, containing what Brown terms, “miscellaneous discourses”[20] an editor has inserted 30-31a, which do fit well with 31b-32. Unfortunately, they do not fit the wider context. Therefore, the chapter would seem to be a collection of sayings that is given a context in a confrontational dialogue with the Jews, and the characterisation of the Jews as “children of the Devil” is redactional.
5. The Jews are Tyrannical
A subject that comes up several times in John is, the “fear of the Jews”. (7:13; 12:42; 19:38; 20:19) One of the chief fears expressed is that anyone confessing Jesus will be put out of the synagogue. (9:13; 12:42; 16:2) Many regard this as anachronistic it is thought that this was not happening in Jesus' time, though it most likely was in the time when John was written. Blomberg argues that before any kind of policy was formalised at the council of Jamnia in around AD 85 local gatherings may have expelled Christians.[21] (16:2) Blomberg also maintains “the synoptic Jesus predicted synagogue expulsion for his followers”, but the references he gives to support this are tenuous. (Lk. 12:8-9; Mk. 8:37; Lk. 6:22-23)[22] It is certainly possible however, that there were localised synagogue expulsions before any formal policy was made but one may ask, why does Jesus prophesy the same later if it was already happening? (16:2) Furthermore, a key scene in each of the synoptics is the moment of recognition when Peter proclaims, “You are the Messiah.” (Mt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29; Lk. 9:20) The relevance of this is that others do not say that Jesus is the Christ. (Mt. 16:14; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 9:19)
It seems logical, that the so-called “blessing against the heretics” (Council of Jamnia AD 85 when Christians are thought to have been officially expelled from the synagogues, and left exposed to brutal Roman persecution with no protection) would be just the kind of thing that might provoke a polemic such as the one against the Jews in John. It also seems most likely that such a policy would be formalised at a council such as Jamnia. This does not rule-out the possibility of localised expulsions but these probably would not spark such a polemic. A formal declaration of the “blessing against heretics” on the other hand, would be equivalent to a declaration of war.
Considering the time when John’s gospel was written[23] it is remarkable that the Romans are not demonised. Revelation, from perhaps a similar time, is (arguably) largely a polemic against Rome. (Rev. 17:9-11) On the contrary, in John, Pilate is reluctant to punish Jesus, as he is in the other gospels. So why are the Romans excused but not the Jews? It may be that Christians did not expect anything better than persecution from the Romans but when the Jews turned on them there was a deep sense of betrayal. The community within which Christianity was born spewed out the church and despised it.
Christology
Central to John’s gospel is his distinctive Christology. It is well established that in John’s gospel the veiled Christological statements of the synoptics become more explicit. (4:26; 8:12; 8:58; 10:38) Just as these messianic claims that cause “the Jews” to aggressively oppose Jesus in the gospel, so, according to Hurtado, it is the Johannine community’s explicit high Christology that proved to be “intolerable” for the Jews.[24]
Conclusion
How much does John’s Gospel reflect bitterness between Christians and Jews towards the end of the first century? If everything in John’s gospel were completely historically accurate, one would find a certain amount of bitterness towards “The Jews” because of the way some things are emphasised. However, in my Judgment, the evangelist has largely used his sources in such a way as to recast the life of Christ into an ongoing conflict with “the Jews”. This conflict is a reflection of the conflict that led to the separation of the Christian sect from mainstream Judaism. In the gospel, Jesus singularly personifies the rejected church of John’s generation and “the Jews” those who still do not accept Jesus. “The Jews” seemingly gain victory by killing Jesus, just as they do by expelling Christians from their gatherings. However, Jesus is victorious over death and this gives hope to those rejected ones. History has shown that the rejected ones like Jesus were ‘resurrected’ and became stronger than their oppressors. The author did not know that this would happen but he may have hoped thus.
Such is the polemic against “the Jews”, that resentment towards them must have been one of the key motivational factors in writing the gospel. The author is not only prepared to rewrite history, reordering events and putting words in the mouths of his enemies to make them look foolish or dishonest, but also to put words into Jesus’ mouth in order to express his bitter resentment towards “the Jews”. Ironically, the servant and master relationship is reversed through John’s narration, Jesus can only do and say what the author allows him.
------------------------------
Postscript - I might add that it's regrettable that texts like John's gospel have been used to justify anti-semitism by certain people. I would certainly not support such abuse of people or of scripture. Though John would certainly seem anti-Jewish we should never lose sight of the fact that the author himself was Jewish and so was the Messiah he proclaimed.
------------------------------
[1] Although Johannine authorship is questionable, I shall refer to the author as John for the sake of convenience.
[2] Cf. Aston, pp.132-133
[3] Lowe, M., Who were the IOUDAIOI?, NT 18 (1976) pp. 101-130 cited in Ashton, p. 133.
[4] Moloney, p.10
[5] Jagersma, pp.156-161
[6] Haenchen, Vol.1, p.265
[7] Mt. 24:5, 23-24, Mk. 13:6,22
[8] Carson, p.265
[9] Lietzmann, p.178
[10] According to Josephus, the Pharisees had little involvement in the first Jewish war. However, speaking as a Pharisee he may have had reason to minimise pharisaic involvement. Jagersma, p.139
[11] These verses are puzzling and many other explanations have been offered for them, see Carson, pp.234-238
[12] Keener
[13] This pericope is looks like a variation of the healing of Centurion’s servant (Matt. 8:5-13, Lk. 7:1-10) Haenchen, vol. 1, p.234, Bernard, p.165-166
[14] Blomberg, p.155
[15] Carson, p.421, Blomberg, p.173
[16] Carson, p.161
[17] Carson, p.347-348
[18] Motyer, S., Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and ‘the Jews’, Paternoster, Carlisle, (1997) cited in Blomberg, pp.144-145
[19] Dodd, C. H., A l’arriere plan d’un dialogue johannique, RHPR 37 (1957) 5-17, cited in Beasley-Murray, p132
[20] Brown, p.354
[21] Blomberg, 153-154
[22] Ibid
[23] Probably towards the end of the first century although opinions vary. Cf. Blomberg, pp.41-44; Brown, pp. LXXX-LXXXVI;
[24] Hurtado, pp.402-402
[2] Cf. Aston, pp.132-133
[3] Lowe, M., Who were the IOUDAIOI?, NT 18 (1976) pp. 101-130 cited in Ashton, p. 133.
[4] Moloney, p.10
[5] Jagersma, pp.156-161
[6] Haenchen, Vol.1, p.265
[7] Mt. 24:5, 23-24, Mk. 13:6,22
[8] Carson, p.265
[9] Lietzmann, p.178
[10] According to Josephus, the Pharisees had little involvement in the first Jewish war. However, speaking as a Pharisee he may have had reason to minimise pharisaic involvement. Jagersma, p.139
[11] These verses are puzzling and many other explanations have been offered for them, see Carson, pp.234-238
[12] Keener
[13] This pericope is looks like a variation of the healing of Centurion’s servant (Matt. 8:5-13, Lk. 7:1-10) Haenchen, vol. 1, p.234, Bernard, p.165-166
[14] Blomberg, p.155
[15] Carson, p.421, Blomberg, p.173
[16] Carson, p.161
[17] Carson, p.347-348
[18] Motyer, S., Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and ‘the Jews’, Paternoster, Carlisle, (1997) cited in Blomberg, pp.144-145
[19] Dodd, C. H., A l’arriere plan d’un dialogue johannique, RHPR 37 (1957) 5-17, cited in Beasley-Murray, p132
[20] Brown, p.354
[21] Blomberg, 153-154
[22] Ibid
[23] Probably towards the end of the first century although opinions vary. Cf. Blomberg, pp.41-44; Brown, pp. LXXX-LXXXVI;
[24] Hurtado, pp.402-402
--------------------
Bibliography
Ashton, J., Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Clarendon Press, Oxford. (1991)
Ashton, J., Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Clarendon Press, Oxford. (1991)
Beasley-Murray, G. R., John, WBC, Waco, Texas. (1987)
Bernard, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, 2 Vols., T & T Clark, Edinburgh. (1928)
Blomberg, C. L., The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, IVP, Leicester. (2001)
Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John, 2 Vols., Doubleday, New York. (1966, 1970)
Brown, R. E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Cassell Ltd. London. (1971)
Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John, IVP, Leicester. (1991)
Haenchen, E., A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 Vols. Translated by Funk, R. W., Fortress, Philadelphia. (1984)
Hurtado, L., Lord Jesus Christ, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (2003)
Jagersma, H., A History of Israel to Bar Kochba, (part II), SCM Press Ltd, London. (1985)
Keener, C. S., ‘IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament’, (1997)
in, The Essential IVP Reference Collection (CD Rom) IVP, Leicester (2001)
Lietzmann, H., A History of the Early Church, Volume I, The Beginnings of the Christian Church, Lutterworth Press, London. (1961)
Moloney, F. J., The Gospel of John, The Liturgical press, Collegeville, Minnesota. (1998)
Pryor, J. W., John: Evangelist of the Covenant People, Darton Longman and Todd Ltd. London. (1992)
Smith, D. M., The Theology of the Gospel of John, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (1995)
Bernard, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, 2 Vols., T & T Clark, Edinburgh. (1928)
Blomberg, C. L., The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, IVP, Leicester. (2001)
Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John, 2 Vols., Doubleday, New York. (1966, 1970)
Brown, R. E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Cassell Ltd. London. (1971)
Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John, IVP, Leicester. (1991)
Haenchen, E., A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 Vols. Translated by Funk, R. W., Fortress, Philadelphia. (1984)
Hurtado, L., Lord Jesus Christ, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (2003)
Jagersma, H., A History of Israel to Bar Kochba, (part II), SCM Press Ltd, London. (1985)
Keener, C. S., ‘IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament’, (1997)
in, The Essential IVP Reference Collection (CD Rom) IVP, Leicester (2001)
Lietzmann, H., A History of the Early Church, Volume I, The Beginnings of the Christian Church, Lutterworth Press, London. (1961)
Moloney, F. J., The Gospel of John, The Liturgical press, Collegeville, Minnesota. (1998)
Pryor, J. W., John: Evangelist of the Covenant People, Darton Longman and Todd Ltd. London. (1992)
Smith, D. M., The Theology of the Gospel of John, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (1995)
Thompson, M. M., “John, Gospel of”, in, Green, J. G.; McKnight, S.; Marshall, I. H.; editors, ‘Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels’, (1992) in, The Essential IVP Reference Collection (CD Rom) IVP, Leicester (2001)
Weatherly, J. A., “Anti-Semitism”, in, Green, J. G.; McKnight, S.; Marshall, I. H.; editors, ‘Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels’, (1992) in, The Essential IVP Reference Collection (CD Rom) IVP, Leicester (2001)
Weatherly, J. A., “Anti-Semitism”, in, Green, J. G.; McKnight, S.; Marshall, I. H.; editors, ‘Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels’, (1992) in, The Essential IVP Reference Collection (CD Rom) IVP, Leicester (2001)
posted by Rowland @ Wednesday, October 25, 2006
5 comments
