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

[flitzerbiest]

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.

Off the top of my head, all the characters in GoJohn are Jewish except for Pilate. That the disciples of Jesus (including the Twelve, Nicodemus and Joseph, among others) are treated with more charity than "the Jews" in general does nothing to undermine the overall impression that "the Jews" are the enemies of Jesus. It is not the "chief priests", but rather "the Jews" in general that are children of the Devil.

[Cathar1950]

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.

Off the top of my head, all the characters in GoJohn are Jewish except for Pilate. That the disciples of Jesus (including the Twelve, Nicodemus and Joseph, among others) are treated with more charity than "the Jews" in general does nothing to undermine the overall impression that "the Jews" are the enemies of Jesus. It is not the "chief priests", but rather "the Jews" in general that are children of the Devil.

The gospels don't really say much about the Romans which everyone hated at the time of Jesus and except as Roman characters Mark has a Roman saying Jesus was the son of God. It was pro-Roman anti-Jewish writings that were meant to show Jesus as innocent for that which he was guilty, sedition.
The gospels reflect the aftermath of the Jewish war and later gospels could write more freely about the situation and admit the Zealot connections but held on to the anti-Jewish attitude now the Jews were in opposition outside of Jerusalem and competing for converts and the future.

[Goose]

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.

This is a poor reading of the text of John in chapter 8.

This whole conversation Jesus is having in chapter 8 is with the Pharisees and it begins at v 13.

v. 13 - The Pharisees challenged [Jesus]

Jesus responds in v14-18.

v. 19 " Then they asked him, Where is your father? and again Jesus responds.
(The Pharisees are now being called they by the author of John.)

v. 21 " Once more Jesus said to them

v. 22 " This made the Jews ask
(The Pharisees are now being called the Jews by the author of John.)

This sequence of conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees is unbroken and continues on throughout the chapter. Its perhaps unfortunate that the author of John uses the Pharisees, and the Jews interchangeably and that this has led to the faulty picture of anti-Jewishness. But someone elses inability to read the text in context is not evidence that the author of the GoJohn was anti-Jewish.

-------

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.

Off the top of my head, all the characters in GoJohn are Jewish except for Pilate. That the disciples of Jesus (including the Twelve, Nicodemus and Joseph, among others) are treated with more charity than "the Jews" in general does nothing to undermine the overall impression that "the Jews" are the enemies of Jesus. It is not the "chief priests", but rather "the Jews" in general that are children of the Devil.

At this stage, there has been ample scriptural reference and argument to counter this notion which you have not addressed. And I havent (unless I missed it) read any detailed scriptural analysis from you to support your position. So far, it seems mainly to be an argument by assertion.

[Mithrae]

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.

I assume you mention Eusebius only because he quotes Papias? There's actually no fragments of Papias which mention a gospel by John, only a collection of stories by Mark and a Hebrew sayings collection by Matthew. However Justin Martyr, who lived in Ephesus c. 132 CE, does quote the fourth gospel as authoritative (Dialogue with Trypho, CV and 1st Apology, LXI).
---------------

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.

Hehe... I made the same mistake - you're using the NIV aren't you? I used to respect that version, but as I discovered yesterday from this 2010 revision I've reached the conclusion that it's utter trash for any genuine enquiry, alongside The Message or the CEV. The NKJV says:

• John 19:38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus.

Obviously, the imprecise and inconsistent use of 'the Jews' is highlighted here also. But with the NIV changing it to 'Jewish leaders' whenever it pleases them... no, it's utter trash for anything but casual reading.

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.

v. 13 - The Pharisees challenged [Jesus]
Jesus responds in v14-18.
v. 19 " Then they asked him, Where is your father? and again Jesus responds.
(The Pharisees are now being called they by the author of John.)
v. 21 " Once more Jesus said to them
v. 22 " This made the Jews ask
(The Pharisees are now being called the Jews by the author of John.)

This sequence of conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees is unbroken and continues on throughout the chapter. Its perhaps unfortunate that the author of John uses the Pharisees, and the Jews interchangeably and that this has led to the faulty picture of anti-Jewishness. But someone elses inability to read the text in context is not evidence that the author of the GoJohn was anti-Jewish.

Allow me to repeat for Flitzerbeist's benefit:
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.

It's among the worst types of hermeneutic error, a source of false justification for a great deal of Christian anti-Semitism through the centuries, and I'd encourage anyone to put quite a bit of thought into their views before adopting the same position.
--------------

--------------

As a matter of interest, I decided to summarize the discussion and the arguments last night, with an analysis of the type of argument and their relative strength. Perhaps others will find it interesting, or helpful in clarifying their thoughts on the matter. I've tried to put them in as much of a coherent claim/response format as possible.

I think such an analysis is important in order to think clearly on a subject. Evidence should be assessed and weighed, not stacked on one side from which to argue against anything contrary. So it's important to try to assess the relative strength of any given point, as well as the reasoning used to make it. For example, an argument that the gospel is anti-semitic is based on interpretation; an argument that John wouldn't have learned to write is based on probability; an argument that the gospel was originally an unorthodox, gnostic work is based on interpretation and historical factors (the use of the book by gnostics); an argument based on the attribution by Irenaeus is similarly based on historical data.

So without further ado, my summary of the arguments:

• 1 - The gospel and 1 John were written by the same person - style analysis & interpretive, average (and historical, weak)
  2 - Eyewitness claims in 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 & John 19:35 (contrast 21:24) - interpretive, average
  A ~ A disciple wouldn't have lived that long - probabilistic, weak
  3 - There were quite a few long-lived ancients - historical & probabilistic, weak
  4 - The appendix was written shortly after disciple's death (21:22-23) - interpretive, strong
  5 - The appendix confirms it was written by a disciple - historical, strong
  B ~ John was already dead (Mark 10:35-40) - James was killed; further interpretation is weak
  6 - John was alive at Ephesus - historical (Polycarp/Irenaeus), weak
  C ~ John wouldn't have learned sufficient literary skills to write it - probabilistic, average
  . . . . . . There's no direct response to this, besides the positive evidence that a disciple, probably John, did write it
  D ~ The gospel is anti-semitic - interpretive, weak
  7 - Pro-semitic; it shows sympathetic reasons and God's will for Jesus' execution (11:49-51) - interpretive, weak
  8 - The gospel merely distinguishes between Christianity and Judaism - historical & interpretive, average
  E ~ Anachronistic; Christians 'put out of the synagogue' - interpretive & historical, average
  . . . . . . The gospel distinguishes between Christianity and Judaism - historical & interpretive, average
  F ~ It was used by gnostics (attributed to Cerinthus 3rd-4th century) - interpretive & historical, weak
  G ~ It's unorthodox, anti-ritual; it omits Jesus' baptism and Lord's supper - interpretive, weak
  . . . . . . John was at Ephesus - historical, weak
  9 - He wrote the gospel against Cerinthus - historical & interpretive, average
  10 - Jesus' baptism and last supper support Cerinthian doctrine*; hence omitting those specific stories - interpretive & historical, weak
  
  Summary of main positive evidence:
  Eyewitness claims in 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 & John 19:35 (contrast 21:24) - interpretive, average
  The appendix was written shortly after disciple's death (21:22-23) - interpretive, strong
  The appendix confirms it was written by a disciple - historical, strong
  John was alive at Ephesus - historical (Polycarp/Irenaeus), weak
  11 - Quotation by Justin Martyr - historical, average
  12 - Attribution by Irenaeus - historical, weak

* One of the doctrines of Cerinthus was Jesus was a good human, son of Joseph and Mary, but that the Christ came down on him (as a dove) when he was baptised, and departed before his crucifixion. If one primary Christian ritual (baptism) was the time of the Christ's descent, the other (Lord's Supper) may well have been considered the time of the Christ's departure. The gospel does mention these two rituals in different manner and places, but the fact that it departs from the synoptic norm on those two points is arguably (interpretive, weak) further evidence that it was written against Cerinthus - whereas if it had been a Cerinthian/gnostic work, they would probably have been emphasised.



Any comments/disagreements/criticisms would be welcome. Do you believe that John's presumed illiteracy after Jesus' death (point C) is actually a strong argument, for example? Or is my interpretation of the gospel's appendix (point 4) only an average argument - is there a more reasonable view on the matter? Or perhaps you'd claim that Irenaeus' attribution of the gospel (point 12) should actually be considered evidence of average strength?

Like I say, it's more for the purpose of clarifying my own thoughts, but I figured it might be interesting to others also.

[WinePusher]

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 Sadducees 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, independent movements in the absence 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 catalyzed 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.

You have some valid points here, but "The Jews" are also portrayed in a positive manner in the Gospel of John:

• John 12:13-So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna."
  
  John 8:31-Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue my word, you are truly my disciples."
  
  John 11:45-Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him.

So the point is the Gospel of John is not "Anti Jewish." Raymond E. Brown has a commentary on this and points out that the Gospel of John brings to light the tensions and schisms within the Jewish community rather then chastising the Jews in general.

Edit:

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.

I assume you mention Eusebius only because he quotes Papias?

Correct, I am referring to Eusebius' compilation of texts in the Ecclesastical History.

There's actually no fragments of Papias which mention a gospel by John, only a collection of stories by Mark and a Hebrew sayings collection by Matthew.

Papias' exegetical work "Interpretations of the Lord's Sayings" (which I assume you are referring to) is confirmed by Eusebius. While we don't have that text, we know what it says from the "Church History" and Papias does make mention of John being a follower of Jesus.

[Goose]

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.

Hehe... I made the same mistake - you're using the NIV aren't you? I used to respect that version, but as I discovered yesterday from this 2010 revision I've reached the conclusion that it's utter trash for any genuine enquiry, alongside The Message or the CEV. The NKJV says:

• John 19:38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus.

Obviously, the imprecise and inconsistent use of 'the Jews' is highlighted here also. But with the NIV changing it to 'Jewish leaders' whenever it pleases them... no, it's utter trash for anything but casual reading.

You are correct that a literal translation from the Greek here would be fear of the Jews and not fear of the Jewish leaders. And you are right, that was from the NIV 2010. I would agree that the NIV probably isnt the best version for serious scholastic enquiry. A more literal version would be better. But I dont think Id go so far as accusing the NIV of changing it to 'Jewish leaders' whenever it pleases them or calling the NIV utter trash.

At any rate, I dont want to create a big diversion over the NIV here but on this point in showing the NIV is not without reasonable justification for making it fear of the Jewish leaders it speaks to the larger point currently being discussed, anti-semitism in the GoJohn. Allow me to explain.

If we view fear of the Jews as a type of literary device used by the author we notice it appears four times in the GoJohn. The first time at 7:10-13

• But when His brothers had gone up, then [Jesus] also went up to the feast [of Tabernacles], not openly, but as it were in secret. Then the Jews sought Him at the feast, and said, Where is He? 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. However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews.

Notice the Jews sought Jesus at the feast and are differentiated from the people by the use of two separate Greek words even though the people at the feast would have been Jews. Some of the Jews (i.e the people) at the feast are pro-Jesus and some are anti-Jesus. This makes sense and is consistent with the remainder of the gospel where some believe and some dont. Win some, lose some. But these same Jews (i.e the people) at the feast wouldnt speak openly about Jesus because they feared the Jews. Who were the Jews that the Jews (i.e the people) feared? This use of fear of the Jews is incoherently paradoxical here if it is to mean all Jews in general. It must therefore mean a specific group of Jews, not all Jews in general. So what group of Jews was to be feared?

We get a better understanding at 9:13-22 where fear of the Jews appears for the second time

• They brought him who formerly was blind to the Pharisees. Now it was a Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. Then the Pharisees also asked him again how he had received his sight. He said to them, He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see. Therefore some of the Pharisees said, This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them. They said to the blind man again, What do you say about Him because He opened your eyes? He said, He is a prophet. But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight. And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see? His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but by what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself. His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.

The Jews that were feared here were the Pharisees.

The third time fear of the Jews appears is at 19:38. The fourth at 20:19. So when the NIV makes John 19:38 read feared the Jewish leaders instead of the literal fear of the Jews I dont think they are far off the mark or being entirely unfaithful to the text. Certianly not to the point were we would be justified in calling the NIV utter trash.

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.

It's among the worst types of hermeneutic error, a source of false justification for a great deal of Christian anti-Semitism through the centuries, and I'd encourage anyone to put quite a bit of thought into their views before adopting the same position.

I agree. And I suspect so do the translators of some version such as the NIV knowing the lack of serious study made by the average layman. Hence the somewhat non-literal translation at 19:38. Ultimately, the Jews is used in multiple contexts in John. Too many to draw anything concrete enough to base an entire world view such as anti-Semitism on.

Ill come back to your summaries a little later hopefully. Getting late now

(P.S. quotes taken from the NKJV. Just for you )

[flitzerbiest]

Hehe... I made the same mistake - you're using the NIV aren't you? I used to respect that version, but as I discovered yesterday from this 2010 revision I've reached the conclusion that it's utter trash for any genuine enquiry, alongside The Message or the CEV.

The NIV is a highly theologically driven "dynamic equivalence" translation which is the darling of the Evangelical church.

[Mithrae]

Obviously, the imprecise and inconsistent use of 'the Jews' is highlighted here also. But with the NIV changing it to 'Jewish leaders' whenever it pleases them... no, it's utter trash for anything but casual reading.

You are correct that a literal translation from the Greek here would be fear of the Jews and not fear of the Jewish leaders. And you are right, that was from the NIV 2010. I would agree that the NIV probably isnt the best version for serious scholastic enquiry. A more literal version would be better. But I dont think Id go so far as accusing the NIV of changing it to 'Jewish leaders' whenever it pleases them or calling the NIV utter trash.

I may have gone a little overboard in my comments I was quite annoyed when I realised I had to change all my quotes from John to a more accurate translation. I won't deny that in some cases where John uses 'the Jews' he's talking about the Jewish leaders, but a translation which changes the text so blatantly like that simply can't be trusted for anything beyond casual reading. Just figured I'd let you know that I'd made the same mistake

[WinePusher]

Hehe... I made the same mistake - you're using the NIV aren't you? I used to respect that version, but as I discovered yesterday from this 2010 revision I've reached the conclusion that it's utter trash for any genuine enquiry, alongside The Message or the CEV.

I made the mistake of getting a "Paraphrased Translation" when I first began seriously reading the Bible While I usually only use a New Revised Standard Version (w/Catholic Apocrypha) the NIV has good features in their bibles. Such as the Archaeological Study Bible which is an NIV, but for accurate word studies the Amplified Bible is the best.

[Shermana]

#1. It's blatant that John has been tweaked and modified. Most particularly the ending, Chapter 21 is an obvious tack on. It most likely originally ended between 20:10-18. The Doubting Thomas story is a clear and blatant later addition which contradicts not only itself but other gospels. (Thomas would not have received the Holy Spirit if this spurious text is true)

#2. The Story of the Adulteress, 7:58-8:11 is clear and undeniable proof that John has been tampered with. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, corrupted as they are, bear witness to this. So we have multiple evidence that someone took this Gospel of John and revamped it.

#3. Iraneus was a wicked heretic, cursed be his legacy. He even made up lies like John fleeing from bathhouses when he encountered Cerinthus.

#4. We have no idea what Cerinthus actually believed except what his enemies stated about him, and his beliefs are nothing at all "Gnostic" in the late-dark-medieval sense, but in the proto-Jewish-Christian sense. We don't even know if he truly denied the Virgin Birth.

#5. Certinthus's later disciples held a tradition that Cerinthus actually wrote the original John, and then the modifiers, who we have seen have had a definite hand in John's development, claimed it to be by John for their own purposes, like how writings of Ignatius and Paul were forged.