Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[d.thomas]

.



The gospel of John appears to have been written by a non-Jew because he refers to Jews as another group and in a demeaning way.




.

[Mithrae]

The gospel of John appears to have been written by a non-Jew because he refers to Jews as another group and in a demeaning way.

The hero of the gospel was a Jew, as were all the disciples in it. The gospel was written for Gentiles some 10-15 years after the first Jewish revolt. For starters, some Jewish factions such as the Saducees had all but ceased to exist with the destruction of the temple around which they were oriented. But more pertinently, this was a time in which both Judaism and Christianity were seeking to establish themselves as legitimate, independant movements in the absense of the temple, and distinct from the negative connotations associated with the revolt. On the Jewish side of things we have the works of Josephus, which I believe don't mention Christianity at all beyond a single reference to Jesus' brother (and that only because his killing catalysed a change in priesthood). The gospel of John, for it's part, is entirely unambiguous about the Jewish roots of Christianity, but makes the distinction for its readers between 'the Jews' and the followers of Christ. Obviously it's pro-Christian, but beyond making that clear distinction for the reader I don't think it could be considered anti-Jewish.
---------------

Fine. There isn't any compelling evidence one way or the other. If one wants to base one's entire life on the claims of a book, the book probably ought to have a better evidentiary status than that.

From memory, there haven't been any comments in this thread - even from the few Christian posters - about basing one's life on the claims of the fourth gospel. If a Christian debator throws some comment about hell or the like into their posts, most of us would rightly make a mental note (and many folk post comments) of bias and improper reasoning - regardless of how suitable it may be in the wider context of their worldview.

I think it's only fair that the same standard should be applied to comments about 'basing one's life on the claims of a book,' which appears to have no relevance to the thread.
---------------

Granted, there is no direct proof per se. It is an inference founded upon external and internal evidence that the author was the disciple John.

But I don't think that is the main argument in this thread (some people seem to be turning into that as a diversion though). My understanding of the main argument from the author of this thread is that GoJohn internally claims two things:

• 1) to be an eyewitness account and;
  2) the witness was a disciple.

And there doesnt seem to be any direct evidence to refute these claims.

Whether or not the beloved disciple was John is an additional point, but as long as we keep that in mind I wouldn't say it's a diversion per se. The problem (which you're probably referring to) comes when the suggested 'weak evidence for Johannine authorship' is equated with weak evidence that it was written by a disciple.

The reason I don't think it's a diversion as such is because the two questions seem to represent converging lines of evidence. Early church tradition, it's generally agreed, is not necessarily a strong source of evidence; but like any other evidence, it should be considered and weighed, not dismissed out of hand. In the case of John, early church tradition is represented most strongly by Irenaeus. He makes comments about all four gospels, and in each case we've got a fairly good idea where he got the core of his information. For Matthew and Mark, from Papias (though we know he mis-identified the Hebrew sayings gospel Papias mentioned); for Luke, simply from deduction as to who was with Paul in the 'we' passages of Acts; and for John, it seems that at least some of his information came from Polycarp.

Polycarp, via Irenaeus, represents a fragment of specific ancient testimony about a disciple of Jesus who lived into the time of Cerinthus. It's not particularly strong evidence at all, in the wider scheme of things. But since we know from other sources that living into one's 80s or 90s was certainly a possibility in those days (as both you and I have provided some evidence for), as far as identifying which disciple wrote the gospel goes, this fragment from Polycarp at the very least quite interesting. We don't know how much else of Irenaeus' claims can be traced back to Polycarp, or which other earlier leaders he may have got it from. But his further explicit identification of John as the gospel's author shouldn't be dismissed out of hand regardless - he grew up in Asia minor, after all, and knew Polycarp at Smyrna while he was young (c. 140-150 CE), just a couple of days' journey from Ephesus itself.

Irenaeus doesn't represent particularly strong evidence, as I say - particularly compared to the author of the gospel and the author of the addendum after his death! - but to the extent that we can trace his personal history and sources regarding the fourth gospel, his evidence should at least be considered and, if rejected entirely, suitable reasons given. If he, who grew up near Ephesus some 50-60 years after the date of composition, claims that the gospel was written there by John in opposition to Cerinthus (ref. Polycarp), it's certainly possible that he was drawing on what he'd heard from the local elders or bishops even if they didn't warrant the same specific mention given to Polycarp. And of course, if that provides some small measure of evidence that the gospel was written by John, then obviously it provides some small measure of evidence to further confirm the claims in the gospel and it's appendix.


However, as you note, my point is more that there's a significant balance of evidence favouring authorship by a disciple, with nothing substantial against it, than that there is (in Flitzer's words) "compelling evidence" which should convince anyone. More than anything, I started this thread as an exercise in investigation and enquiry for folk who at times so readily find terms like "no evidence" or "no witnesses" coming to their fingertips

[flitzerbiest]

The gospel of John appears to have been written by a non-Jew because he refers to Jews as another group and in a demeaning way.

The hero of the gospel was a Jew, as were all the disciples in it. The gospel was written for Gentiles some 10-15 years after the first Jewish revolt. For starters, some Jewish factions such as the Saducees had all but ceased to exist with the destruction of the temple around which they were oriented. But more pertinently, this was a time in which both Judaism and Christianity were seeking to establish themselves as legitimate, independant movements in the absense of the temple, and distinct from the negative connotations associated with the revolt. On the Jewish side of things we have the works of Josephus, which I believe don't mention Christianity at all beyond a single reference to Jesus' brother (and that only because his killing catalysed a change in priesthood). The gospel of John, for it's part, is entirely unambiguous about the Jewish roots of Christianity, but makes the distinction for its readers between 'the Jews' and the followers of Christ. Obviously it's pro-Christian, but beyond making that clear distinction for the reader I don't think it could be considered anti-Jewish.

"The Jews" are cast as the consistent enemies of Jesus and the disciples extensively and consistently in the book of John. It is the book of John that was used to cast Jews as "Christ killers" for over a thousand years. Failure to see the anti-Jewish tone of the book of John is a failure to read carefully, IMO.

[d.thomas]

Robert G. Price evaluates gJohn before dismissing a disciple of Jesus as the author of gJohn, one point among others, the supposed signatory passage is really a third party statement, not a self-description, in addition to the fact that Chapter 21, in which it exists, was almost certainly added by a later hand, not the same person who wrote the bulk of the Gospel.http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

Chapter 24/26 The chapter is closed by two verses that sit incongruously with the remainder of the chapter - referring to the author of the gospel (whoever it might be) in the 3rd person ("... for we know that what he says is true").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_21


There are other problems as well that can be addressed. We can bring them all up but let's deal with this one first.

[d.thomas]

The gospel of John appears to have been written by a non-Jew because he refers to Jews as another group and in a demeaning way.

The hero of the gospel was a Jew, as were all the disciples in it. The gospel was written for Gentiles some 10-15 years after the first Jewish revolt. For starters, some Jewish factions such as the Saducees had all but ceased to exist with the destruction of the temple around which they were oriented. But more pertinently, this was a time in which both Judaism and Christianity were seeking to establish themselves as legitimate, independant movements in the absense of the temple, and distinct from the negative connotations associated with the revolt. On the Jewish side of things we have the works of Josephus, which I believe don't mention Christianity at all beyond a single reference to Jesus' brother (and that only because his killing catalysed a change in priesthood). The gospel of John, for it's part, is entirely unambiguous about the Jewish roots of Christianity, but makes the distinction for its readers between 'the Jews' and the followers of Christ. Obviously it's pro-Christian, but beyond making that clear distinction for the reader I don't think it could be considered anti-Jewish.

"The Jews" are cast as the consistent enemies of Jesus and the disciples extensively and consistently in the book of John. It is the book of John that was used to cast Jews as "Christ killers" for over a thousand years. Failure to see the anti-Jewish tone of the book of John is a failure to read carefully, IMO.

Exactly, and a good reason in itself to dismiss John, son of Zebedee, as the author of gJohn.

[Mithrae]

The hero of the gospel was a Jew, as were all the disciples in it. The gospel was written for Gentiles some 10-15 years after the first Jewish revolt. For starters, some Jewish factions such as the Saducees had all but ceased to exist with the destruction of the temple around which they were oriented. But more pertinently, this was a time in which both Judaism and Christianity were seeking to establish themselves as legitimate, independant movements in the absense of the temple, and distinct from the negative connotations associated with the revolt. On the Jewish side of things we have the works of Josephus, which I believe don't mention Christianity at all beyond a single reference to Jesus' brother (and that only because his killing catalysed a change in priesthood). The gospel of John, for it's part, is entirely unambiguous about the Jewish roots of Christianity, but makes the distinction for its readers between 'the Jews' and the followers of Christ. Obviously it's pro-Christian, but beyond making that clear distinction for the reader I don't think it could be considered anti-Jewish.

"The Jews" are cast as the consistent enemies of Jesus and the disciples extensively and consistently in the book of John. It is the book of John that was used to cast Jews as "Christ killers" for over a thousand years. Failure to see the anti-Jewish tone of the book of John is a failure to read carefully, IMO.

That would be based more on Matthew 27 ("His blood is on us and on our children!"), not John. In fact, John seems particularly careful about where to assign blame:

• Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify Him, crucify Him! ~ John 19:6
  
  But they cried out, Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!
  Pilate said to them, Shall I crucify your King?
  The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar! ~ v15

I would suggest that perhaps I'm not the one failing to read carefully
[Edit: I'd further add that how Christians chose to use a work hundreds or thousands of years later has no bearing on the author's actual intent. As I've said, the fact that Christianity and Judaism were at that stage defining themselves as movements separate from each other and the recent revolt is ample explanation for the author's use of 'the Jews,' in contrast to the followers of Jesus.]

Robert G. Price evaluates gJohn before dismissing a disciple of Jesus as the author of gJohn, one point among others, the supposed signatory passage is really a third party statement, not a self-description, in addition to the fact that Chapter 21, in which it exists, was almost certainly added by a later hand, not the same person who wrote the bulk of the Gospel.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

I notice that Price doesn't go on to further examine that chapter; why was it written, and when? I understand that it appears in all manuscript families, implying that the addition was 'officially' made not too long after the main gospel was written. So the question is how early was it added?

I've already expressed my view that only scenario which seems to make sense is that it was added after the beloved disciples' death, to off-set the lost hope of Christ's failure to return (v22-23). This would constitute indirect evidence both that the beloved disciple was alive until shortly before that time, and that the added chapter constitutes a reliable source regarding the main gospel's origins. Do you disagree with my interpretation of v22-23, or have a better suggestion to offer?


Edit: I want to emphasise that point, because that's what a good two-thirds of biblical scholarship consists of - interpreting the sitz im leben of a text or passage; trying to discern the author's meaning and purpose so as to locate it as accurately as possible in it's theological, geographical and chronological milieu. Far and away the biggest reason we tend to believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke weren't written any earlier than the beginning of the first Jewish revolt is because we interpret Mark 14 as referring to the temple's destruction. One of the main reasons we consider Galatians one of Paul's earliest letters and Romans one of his last is due to interpretation of the themes and issues he emphasises in each, and the relative sophistication of his theology. The argument that John is anti-Jewish and mustn't have been written by a Jew is in the same vein, and to maintain his conclusion that Jesus was no more than a mythical character Robert G. Price must appeal to a whole array of interpretations and supposed interpolations.

So I consider it particularly important to note that down-playing the widely-held correlation between the return of Christ and the disciples' lifespan (v22-23; cf. Matthew 16:28 etc) makes no sense whatsoever if all the disciples were already long dead!

[Mithrae]

The hero of the gospel was a Jew, as were all the disciples in it. The gospel was written for Gentiles some 10-15 years after the first Jewish revolt. For starters, some Jewish factions such as the Saducees had all but ceased to exist with the destruction of the temple around which they were oriented. But more pertinently, this was a time in which both Judaism and Christianity were seeking to establish themselves as legitimate, independant movements in the absense of the temple, and distinct from the negative connotations associated with the revolt. On the Jewish side of things we have the works of Josephus, which I believe don't mention Christianity at all beyond a single reference to Jesus' brother (and that only because his killing catalysed a change in priesthood). The gospel of John, for it's part, is entirely unambiguous about the Jewish roots of Christianity, but makes the distinction for its readers between 'the Jews' and the followers of Christ. Obviously it's pro-Christian, but beyond making that clear distinction for the reader I don't think it could be considered anti-Jewish.

"The Jews" are cast as the consistent enemies of Jesus and the disciples extensively and consistently in the book of John. It is the book of John that was used to cast Jews as "Christ killers" for over a thousand years. Failure to see the anti-Jewish tone of the book of John is a failure to read carefully, IMO.

I think I ought to come back to this, because it is an important point.

Some specific verses in John, taken out of context where 'the Jews' want to kill Jesus, can indeed seem somewhat anti-Jewish in nature to eyes sensitive to the anti-Semitism in later Christian history. But when you actually read the gospel, the progression of the story and the imprecise manner in which 'the Jews' are referred to even within a single passage, such a simplistic view really doesn't measure up. The whole gospel portrays Jesus as a Jew, attending Jewish festivals, with many Jews believing in him; but then some followers leaving because of his difficult teachings, there was controversy and genuine concern amongst the people about his blasphemy, and fear among the leaders about the danger from the Romans his large following might invoke. In the end, the gospel makes it clear that it was the Jewish leaders who plotted and arranged his crucifixion.

If you'll forgive a rather large block of quotations, I think it's worth making this point clear:

• John 2:13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
  
  John 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.
  
  John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.
  
  John 3:22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized. . . . 25 Then there arose a dispute between some of Johns disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified"behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!
  
  John 4:45 So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they also had gone to the feast.
  
  John 5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches.
  
  John 5:16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.
  18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
  
  John 6:3 And Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat with His disciples. 4 Now the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near.
  
  John 6:52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, How can this Man give us His flesh to eat? . . . . 60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can understand it? 61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? . . . . 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
  
  John 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. 2 Now the Jews Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. 3 His brothers therefore said to Him, Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing.
  
  John 7:10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. 11 Then the Jews sought Him at the feast, and said, Where is He? 12 And there was much complaining among the people concerning Him. Some said, He is good; others said, No, on the contrary, He deceives the people. 13 However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews. [Note the imprecise and inconsistent use of 'the Jews'; basing a particular view of the gospel on a term used so vaguely is dubious, in my opinion]
  14 Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. 15 And the Jews marveled, saying, How does this Man know letters, having never studied?
  
  John 7:37 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.. . . .
  40 Therefore many from the crowd, when they heard this saying, said, Truly this is the Prophet. 41 Others said, This is the Christ.
  But some said, Will the Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was? 43 So there was a division among the people because of Him. 44 Now some of them wanted to take Him, but no one laid hands on Him.
  45 Then the officers came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, Why have you not brought Him?
  46 The officers answered, No man ever spoke like this Man!
  47 Then the Pharisees answered them, Are you also deceived? 48 Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him? 49 But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.
  
  John 10:22 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomons porch. 24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.
  
  John 11:45 Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. 48 If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.
  49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish. 51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
  53 Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.
  
  John 11:55 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover. 56 They kept looking for Jesus, and as they stood in the temple courts they asked one another, What do you think? Isnt he coming to the festival at all? 57 But the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who found out where Jesus was should report it so that they might arrest him.
  
  John 19:5 Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, Behold the Man!
  6 Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify Him, crucify Him!
  Pilate said to them, You take Him and crucify Him, for I find no fault in Him.
  7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God. . . . .
  15 But they cried out, Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!
  Pilate said to them, Shall I crucify your King?
  The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar!

Note the general sequence of the narrative, and especially the imprecise and inconsistent use of 'the Jews' in 7:10ff and elsewhere; basing a particular view of the gospel on a term used so vaguely is dubious, in my opinion.

As I see it, there's two main possibilities here. One, which I've suggested above; for a Gentile audience some two decades after the first Jewish revolt, it was important for the author to distinguish between the Jews and the followers of Christ. The Jews are not demonised by the gospel either in intent or in practice, regardless of how a few verses taken out of context might be read.

The other main alternative implied in views such as Flitzer's above, unless I'm very much mistaken, is that the author was anti-Semitic and decided to put those views into his work by emphasising, more than any other gospel, Jesus' observance of the Jewish festivals, the difficulty faced in accepting his teachings, and the genuine concerns on both religious and political grounds which led ultimately to his execution. Am I the only one who finds this latter view odd?

(In fact there may even be a third view, that since the temple's destruction Christians had begun to spread the myth that it was because 'the Jews' had killed Christ; and far from demonising or condemning 'the Jews,' the fourth gospel aims in part to demonstrate that Jesus' death was in many ways an understandable (and, obviously, theologically necessary) response on the part of the Jewish leaders. In fact, the gospel explicitly states that the high priest's view on the subject came from God!)

[WinePusher]

I think the main point that is being made by the author of this thread is that the Gospel of John self identifies as a witness. So far I haven't seen anyone offer any direct evidence to refute this.

I am reading the thread somewhat differently. I have seen acknowledgement that there is no direct proof that John the apostle wrote John the gospel. On the other hand:

1. There is no positive evidence for Johannine authorship either.
2. The gospel was written in fluent Greek; John the apostle almost certainly spoke Aramaic and was described in the NT as lacking in education.
3. The author does not actually identify himself.
4. The date of the gospel is late for an eyewitness.
5. There are substantive discrepancies between the accounts of "eyewitness John" and "eyewitness Matthew".
6. There are clearer examples of self-attribution (e.g. Gospel of Thomas) that are nevertheless dismissed by Christians.

1 - Irenaeus/Polycarp positively identifies John as author in opposition to Cerinthus. Perhaps you mean to say that there is no early/strong evidence for Johannine authorship? The criteria for what you would accept as 'strong' evidence is not, obviously, shared by all people, but since there obviously is positive evidence for Johannine authorship it may be wise to choose your terms more carefully. Imprecise thinking and wording can't really help in reaching precise conclusions

2 - This has been done to death. John probably spoke Aramaic, but hailing from Galilee (so close to Herod's capital, the heterogenous Tiberias) he may well have spoken passable Greek too, even during Jesus' ministry. But more to the point, unless you or Tired can provide evidence suggesting that it's significantly improbable for a leader/teacher of the church to have learned Greek writing skills over the course of 50+ years, repitition ad nauseum doesn't count as argument

3 - He only identifies himself as the disciple Jesus loved, agreed

4 - There's specific testimony from Polycarp (via Irenaeus) that John did live that long

5 - That's irrelevant, unless you suppose that Matthew really is an eyewitness account against which we can validly compare John. Since I suspect you don't believe that, I repeat that poor reasoning doesn't exactly help acheive sound results

6 - Are you arguing (here and above) that what Christians accept or dismiss counts as valid evidence in a debate? You and Tired appear to be implying that the gospel of John and the gospel of Thomas cannot or should not be judged on their own merits - that the conclusions drawn from one should be applied (or are somehow valid) to the other. I'm really not sure I follow the reasoning. If your only point is that pseudonymous works exist, I'd appreciate the clarification

I have to agree with Mithrae here. Early Patristic attestation counts alot when it comes New Testament Scholarship, and we have not only Irenaeus attesting to authentic Johnannine authorship but also Papias and Eusebius. For example, when the Gospel of Judas was discovered one of the things that attested to its status as an actual (not accurate) historical document was attestation from the Church Father Irenaeus in the Aganist Heresies. So early christian sources should suffice.

[Goose]

The Jews" are cast as the consistent enemies of Jesus and the disciples extensively and consistently in the book of John. It is the book of John that was used to cast Jews as "Christ killers" for over a thousand years. Failure to see the anti-Jewish tone of the book of John is a failure to read carefully, IMO.

The Jews are not demonised by the gospel either in intent or in practice, regardless of how a few verses taken out of context might be read.

I'll just add to what Mithrae has argued. It seems if there was any demonizing taking place it was of the leaders, not the Jews in general...

John 19:38-42:

• Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilates permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

If the author of the GoJohn was anti-Jewish it seems odd he would peg Joseph of Arimathea, a Jew, as the primary person responsible for the care of Jesus' body and burial rather than some other well known disciple. This would seem to present a paradox if one assumes the writer were anti-Jewish.

Add to this, as Mithrae has mentioned, it seems even more odd the writer of John would pay special attention to the Jewish customs surrounding burial rights if he was anti-Jewish.

[flitzerbiest]

If you'll forgive a rather large block of quotations, I think it's worth making this point clear:

Not a single quote on your list out of John 8, which casts the Jews as being inextricably bound to "the World" and excluded from "above", spawn of the devil and incapable of hearing the word of God.

Color me surprised.