JOHN
& THE JEWS
Theological
Anti-Semitism In The Fourth Gospel
Janis E. Leibig
The Jews: a
critical investigation
No other New
Testament writing has been accused more often of an anti-Judaic thrust than the
Gospel of John. Its ambiguous replacement theme, its pointed arguments
with individual Jews, and its attack against the religious position of Judaism
all reflect the polemical stance of the Fourth Evangelist.
Scholars are
intrigued by the Johannine use of “the Jews.” They
note the striking number of times it is used in John (seventy times) as
compared to the sixteen occurrences (Mark, six, Matthew, five; Luke, five) in
the Synoptics. They also recognize that; while
the Synoptic occurrences do not reflect in any negative way upon “the Jews,”
more than half the seventy occurrences of “hoi Ioudaioi”
in the Fourth Gospel do convey a negative, polemical attitude. The reader
is confronted not only by the frequency of the refrain, “the Jews,” but also by
a drastically different meaning mediated by that refrain. It is John’s
polemical usage of “the Jews” which demands investigation.
The immediate
impression conveyed by “the Jews” is one of unreceptivity
and hostility toward Jesus. “The Jews” question and misunderstand Jesus’
words (John 2.18,20; 6.52; 7.35; 8.22); they murmur at him (6.41); they
disbelieve him (9.18; 11.37); they desire to put Jesus to death (5.16,18; 7.1)
and even attempt to do so with their own hands (8.59; 10.31; 11.8). In the
Gospel of John the enemies of Jesus are simply labeled “the Jews.”
Unfortunately, ‘this identification is so complete that the author almost
forgets that Jesus himself and his disciples were members of the same Jewish
people.’ Rudolf Bultmann remarks: “The Jews are
spoken of as an alien people... ; Jesus himself speaks to them as a stranger
and correspondingly, those in whom the stirrings of faith or the search for
Jesus are to be found are distinguished from ‘the Jews,’ even if they are
themselves Jews.” (7.19; 8.17; 10.34, 7.22) “The Jews” conveys not only the
degenerate nature of the enemies of Jesus but also the negation of the Jewish
religion. In John 5, for instance, the Johannine
Jesus addresses “the Jews:”
“His
voice you have never heard ... and do not have his word hiding in you ... You
search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life ...
but I know that you have not the love of God within you. If you believed Moses,
you would believe me ... But if you do not believe his writings, how will you
believe my words?”(John
5.37-47, RSV)
A key issue
regarding John’s usage of “the Jews” is the question of their identity.
Who is this group of people who hate Jesus and are responsible for the
organized opposition against him? Raymond Brown answers, in the Anchor Bible,
‘In general, the Fourth Gospel uses “the Jews” as almost a technical title for
the religious authorities, particularly those in
The term “the Jews”
often functions in John the same as the religious authorities―the Pharisees,
scribes, elders, chief priests and Sadducees―do in the Synoptic Gospels
(John 18.28-31 and Mark 15.1; John 2.18 and Mark 11.27-18). Dominic Crossan agrees: “‘The Jews” is most often restricted to
mean precisely those forces in authority inimical to Jesus. He concludes that
to accept it otherwise involves numerous contradictions in the text.
Nearly all biblical
scholars extend the historical meaning of “the Jews” to include the Jewish
authorities of John’s own day. Thus, ‘John indicates by this term that
“the Jews” of his own time are the spiritual descendants of the Jewish
authorities who were hostile to Jesus during the ministry. Yet, to reduce
the polemical meaning of ‘the Jews to the Jewish authorities of either Jesus’
or John’s time is to miss the numerous ambiguities, the confusion of roles, and
ultimately the anti-Judaic bias that permeates the Gospel of John.
Like Brown and Crossan, Reginald Fuller acknowledges a group of
occurrences of “hoi Ioudaioi” which are reminiscent
of the conflict stories in the Synoptic. In these, “the Jews” take issue
with Jesus for performing healings on the Sabbath (John 5.10,15,16)―a
role usually played by the Pharisees or scribes in the other gospels.
However, Fuller points out that in some of John’s conflict stories the
opponents are actually named as ‘Pharisees’ at the beginning of the passage,
but as the hostility increases they significantly become “hoi Ioudaioi” (9.13 and 18ff; 8.13 and 22ff). He remarks:
“This shift from
the ‘Pharisees’ to ‘Ioudaioi’ shows clearly that the
picture of hostility was rooted in the pre-Johannine
tradition and that it is the Evangelist who redefined the opponents of Jesus as
‘Ioudaioi.’”
Fuller regards this
definition of opponents as a polemical device which extends the condemnation
beyond the religious authorities.
That “the Jews”
cannot simply be identified with the religious authorities is further
substantiated by passages in which a similar polemical shift is
operative―i.e. from “ochlos”
(or “ochloi”) to “hoi Ioudaioi.”
This is exemplified in the Bread of Life discourse where Jesus’ opponents start
out as a crowd demanding a sign (6.30), but by vs. 41 (cf
52), they have become “the Jews.” The term “ochlos”
occurs through 12.34 and often vacillates between hostility and friendliness to
Jesus, a vacillation which Fuller believes was part of the pre-Johannine tradition. Yet, the Evangelist has
increasingly chosen after 10.19 to substitute “Ioudaioi”
for the “ochlos” of his tradition. By the time
of the passion narrative, “the crowd is always the “Ioudaioi”
and it is always hostile.” In replacing the “crowds” of his source with his
polemical terminology, “the Jews,” John indicts all the Jewish people―not
just the authorities―for their hostility toward Jesus.
To concentrate all
exegetical efforts upon determining the historical identity of “the Jews” in
John is to disregard the Evangelist’s intention. He cares little for individual
identities; in fact, through his usage of “the Jews” he intentionally obscures
all identities and inflicts indiscriminate hostility upon all Jews - both of
Jesus’ time and of his own. For John, the opponents of Jesus and of
Christianity are “the Jews,” tout court.
Many scholars
recognize that “the Jews” functions symbolically throughout John’s Gospel and
that it can only be understood in relation to the Johannine
meaning of “the world.” For John, “the world” is a symbol which
represents the realm of unbelief; it is the realm of darkness whose head is the
devil, the prince of the world (12.31; 14.30; 16.11). ‘The world’ hates Jesus
and his disciples (15.18-19, 17.14-16); it does not know Jesus (1.10) or the
father (17.25); when Jesus departs, the world will be glad (16.20). In the
fourth Gospel, ‘the world’ is the totality of all that is not of God.
For John, “the
Jews” are inextricably bound to “the world.” Like the world, “the Jews”
are “from below;” they do not know the Father and have never heard his voice
nor seen his face; they do not believe in the one whom he sent (5.37-38).
Kysar reflects on “the Jews” as a symbol: “Those
human beings ... who cling to their pride in themselves―those human
beings who cannot accept that self-understanding presented in the Revelation of
God in Christ―these are the persons represented in the symbol ‘the
Jews.’”
The anti-Jewish
stance of the Fourth Gospel is exemplified in the portrayal of the Jewish
people as enemies of the truth, as persons devoid of spiritual insight (cf 3.1-7)―and, ultimately, as spawn of the
devil. This portrayal is mediated through the Johannine
use of “the Jews”―a polemical device which John uses both intentionally
and indiscriminately to indict all opponents of Jesus and Christianity.
The
indictment: the anti-Semitic potential of “the Jews”
“All the learned
exegesis in the world cannot negate the truth that there are elements not only
of anti-Judaism, but also of anti-Semitism in the New Testament. (A. Roy Eckardt, The Encounter of Jews and Christians 1973, 126)
Many scholars, in attempting to deal with the anti-Judaism that permeates the
Fourth Gospel, have not come to terms with the theological sources of John’s
polemic.
While one can
explain the historical circumstances which influenced John’s treatment of “the
Jews,” one cannot exonerate him from the ultimate responsibility of producing
“a written compilation of clearly expressed anti-Jewish sentiments.”
The “anti-Semitic
potential” of the Fourth Gospel is sometimes obscured by scholars who believe
that a careful reading of the context of these hostile references reveal that
the Evangelist does not mean “the Jews” in general, but only the authorities;
for them, the “context” protects the Evangelist and the Gospel against an
“anti-Semitic potential.” The ecumenist Roy Eckardt
responds to this approach:
“ . . while the
context of any proposition is relevant when discriminate or qualified judgments
are tendered, the context becomes totally irrelevant when indiscriminate or
unqualified judgments are being made.” For Eckardt
and for many other scholars, “the Jews” belongs to the latter category: the
Gospel of John again and again makes indiscriminate, hostile judgments
against “the Jews” as Jews, and this is what is meant by anti-Semitism.
The article “the” is as decisive as the word “Jews” or more so. Thus, the
“context” is powerless in neutralizing the “anti-Semitic potential” of the
Fourth Gospel.
Many biblical
scholars believe they can exonerate John from the charge of anti-Semitism by
interpreting “the Jews” as a symbol. Thus, “the Jews” represents not
specific persons but a ‘typical kind of human failure to accept Christ.’
It is a term symbolizing all opposition to Jesus, or all human opaqueness, or
even the general evil of the world. The logical conclusion of these scholars
is the same: John’s term “the Jews” is not anti-Semitic because it does not
actually refer to Jewish people at all. Yet, this conclusion reveals a somewhat
unsophisticated understanding of symbol. John Townsend reacts:
Using “the Jews”
to denote ... the whole sinful world is scarcely pro-Jewish. In such a
case, “the Jews” have become the epitome for what is evil.
Dominic Crossan recognizes “’the Jews’ as a dangerous symbolic
term... that might well be a root of anti-Semitism in the Christian subconscious.”
Born out of the collective unconscious of the Johannine
community, “the Jews” soon embodies an independent life within the text of the
Fourth Gospel. Breaking out of its time bound situation, it takes on a timeless
character and a sinister power whose evil consequences no amount of Christian
love (cf 13.34-35; 15.12-17) can overcome.
John’s polemical
usage of “the Jews” constitutes a’ symbolic demonization of a people.
That usage cannot protect the Fourth Gospel from the charge of anti-Semitism.
One last approach
which obscures the “anti-Semitic potential” of the Fourth Gospel relies upon
technical distinctions between the various levels of anti-Jewish attitudes
manifested throughout history. Many ecumenists draw a legitimate
distinction between “anti-Judaism” and “anti-Semitism.” Edward Flannery defines
“anti-Semitism” as a purely theological reality which reflects Judaism as a way
of salvation, but not Jews as a people. It is “intellectual in nature... ,
bereft of hatred or stereotyping of Jews, it is a ‘theological offensive’
against Judaism, which constitutes ‘fair and irenic polemics.’”
“Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, always includes a note of hatred or contempt
of the Jewish people as such.” While many scholars have finally acknowledged “anti-Judaic”
sentiments within the Fourth Gospel, very few are willing to label those
sentiments “anti-Semitic.”
While it is
“technically” wrong to apply anti-Semitic to the Gospel of John, it is
certainly not “technically” correct to revert to “anti-Judaic” language.
The Fourth Gospel far exceeds Flannery’s definition of “anti-Judaism.” It is
neither bereft of hatred or stereotyping of Jews nor are its polemics “fair and
irenic.” Eldon Epp, who distinguishes three
levels of anti-Jewish sentiments within the New Testament, believes that while
the “denigration of the Torah” by Paul and the “maligning of the Pharisees” in
the Synoptics have led to “pernicious consequences,”
the “vilification of the Jews” as a whole by the Fourth Gospel must be
accounted more heavily responsible for those consequences.’ His judgment is
harsh: ‘It is difficult to apply to the Fourth Gospel’s anti-Jewish attitudes
and to their distinct impact upon the reader any other term than
‘anti-Semitic.’
Thus, the
theological turning point of anti-Semitism is found in the New Testament, and
is manifested particularly in the Fourth Gospel. That turning point provides
not only the distinguishing characteristic between pagan anti-Semitism and
John’s polemics, but also a catalyst, a rationale, a theological base for
future racial antipathy toward the Jewish people. Recognition of this
‘anti-Semitic potential’ inherent within the Fourth Gospel is the first step
toward any resolution.