Notes on the Gospel of John III

Thomas

Christ plays in ten thousand places
Veteran Member
Messages
17,238
Reaction score
5,996
Points
108
Location
London UK
The Gospel of John claims to have been written by an eyewitness, and scholars note a high degree of verisimilitude with regard to first century Galilee and Judea – Jewish ritual and festival practice, geographic and topographical awareness, and a more probable historiography. The Synoptics, for example, see the high priests demanding Jesus' execution for blasphemy, while John has the high priests agree to execute Jesus as necessary to forestall an inevitable Roman reaction if his movement continues to gain traction. John's chronology, of a three-year mission, of the Passion, is favoured by scholars over the Synoptics.

If, however, the author of John is indeed an eye-witness, and with Peter and James one of the triumvirate of the Jerusalem Church, then the question of his apparent anti-semitism is a recurring problem, if not inconceivable, because all our reference outside the Gospel of John is of a community of Jews practicing Judaism and understanding themselves as 'within' Judaism. Even the writings of Paul, which highlights nascent tensions, nevertheless show that Paul was a Jew and saw his mission to the Gentiles within a Jewish context.

One clue might be the author's neologism, a new term, and that is ἀποσύναγωγος (aposynágōgos), literally "put out of the synagogue", used in the sense of "excommunicated": John 9:22 "These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue." John 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." John 16:2 "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

It seems the term was coined by the author of John's Gospel, as it occurs nowhere else. It likely reflects a situation in which followers of Jesus and a synagogue congregation were confronting each other. The most important Jewish prayer, recited daily, facing Jerusalem, known as the Amidah ('Standing Prayer'), was amended, after the destruction of the Temple (70CE), to offer an ironic "blessing on the apostates" (Birkat Haminim), the 12th of 18 benedictions, being a curse against heretics and sectarians, notably Christians. The term aposynágôgos in the gospel most likely reflects a history of conflict between Jews and Christians that had already been in existence for some time.

Significantly, though, is that tensions between the two, "Christianity" and "Judaism", becomes progressively defined during the 2nd century. All such texts (other than John) date from that era – in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, "Christianity" and "Judaism" are used in opposition; the Letter of Barnabas poses a radical contrast between God’s covenant with Israel and his covenant with the Christians; Justin Martyr's First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho both seek to argue that the meaning of the Jewish Scriptures is exclusively fulfilled in Christ and Christianity.

The view is more likely that the author of the gospel is writing at a time when Jews and Christians are increasingly in competition, a time in which some Christians are beginning to redefine their beliefs away from the strictly Jewish outlook of the earlier Jesus Movement. All of our data suggest that this kind of competition was only really happening in earnest in the second century as some Christ-following groups and individuals began to define themselves away from Jews and Judaism; we do not have, conversely, examples from this period of Jews excluding Christians from Jewishness.

The evidence suggests that lines of demarcation between the two were far less clear and unequivocal than early Christian writings might suggest. Some Gentile converts to Christianity may have believed they had an obligation to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. Christians of Jewish origin may have believed themselves justified in continuing to practice Jewish rites. What is not clear is whether Jewish converts to the Christian faith regarded themselves as "Christian Jews" or as "Jewish Christians," or whether they considered the labels "Jew" and "Christian" as contradictory or complementary.

We may fairly presume that attitudes varied, across regions, communities, and even among individuals. There were Jews who became Christians, yet observed purity laws, the Jewish Sabbath and circumcises their sons. Even those Greeks and Romans who felt drawn to Judaism and its customs clung to the religious practices after they converted to Christianity. Meanwhile, Gentile Christians who had nothing to do with Judaism continued to attend pagan temples and sacrificial feasts. To describe the relationship between Jews and Christians as a "parting of the ways" does not do justice to this diversity.

Alongside all this, if we view the above as between 'orthodox' Christianity and 'orthodox' Judaism (there actually being no such thing), then there are those who began to observe heterodox Jewish and Christian speculations, so as to fall somewhere between our two proto-orthodoxies. The 'Gnostics' were such a group, and their allegiance to either one or both, or neither, only served to confuse the issue.
 
Thomas, I hate to see the diligence that underlies your historical studies go undiscussed. However, as one historian to another, I think we are “unicorns” to some extent in that most “average” Christians do not have much interest in nor knowledge of early Christianity outside of historians (as evidence of lack of response to your posts – so far).


1) THE CONCEPT OF MULTIPLE “JUDAISMS” IN THE PAST, JUST AS THERE ARE MULTIPLE “CHRISTIANITIES” NOWADAYS.

Thomas said regarding Johns textual witness: “…the question of his apparent anti-semitism is a recurring problem, if not inconceivable, because all our reference outside the Gospel of John is of a community of Jews practicing Judaism and understanding themselves as 'within' Judaism.”


The historical concept that there were multiple factions of Jews anciently, with a couple factions (such as the Pharisees and Sadducees" being dominant (and thus getting most of the historical textual attention) is important.

The recognition the messianic Judaism (and it’s factions) existed, allows John, as a messianic Jew, to honestly claim that he is both a proper Jew despite his criticism of other “Jews”.

This is the same principle we see in Christianity with its many schisms. Each Christian movement feels perfectly justified in feeling that it is the “real” and “orthodox” version of Christianity while it criticizes other Christianity. Such anti-Christianity Christianity acts similarly to the anti-Jewish Judaism of John, a Messianic Jew. Similarly, the modern Messianic Jews (those who've accepted Jesus as the Messiah) criticize non-messianic Jews.



2) JESUS AND THE MESSIANIC "JEWS/CHRISTIANS" AS A RESTORATIONISTS/REFORMERS, RATHER THAN AS CREATORS OF A "NEW RELIGION"

IF Jesus was trying to reform the Judaism of his day and thus restore the Judaism of his day to an earlier and more correct form of Jahwism (that the Jews had strayed from), then Johns criticism of Judaism of his day is understandable.

The pattern of the episodic sending of prophets to the Jahwists, and later to the Jews in order to call them to repentance for various contamination of original religion is an obvious model for creating historical coherence regarding what Jesus, as a restorer/reformer was doing (as well as accomplishing the atonement and other tasks).

This model of restoration or reformation makes perfect historical sense in that it explains that Jesus and John and Paul saw themselves as trying to bring the Judaism of their day back to the ancient principles the Jews had, over time, abandoned or misinterpreted and contaminated with doctrines they, themselves, created.

For example, Jesus criticized the “Pharisees and teachers of the laws”, saying “But in vain they worship me, teaching precepts of men [as] doctrines.” (Matt 15:9)
Such contamination of "pure religion" did not appear overnight in Judaism, but the process had been happening over a large period of time.

If Jesus was NOT creating a “new” religion, but simply trying to restore and reform such Jewish factions back to the most ancient form of “Judaism” or “Jahwism” that had been given by Jehovah anciently (as the early Christians tell us in their texts), then this model explains the support for some principles held by the Jews while at the same time trying to rid the Jews of other contaminating doctrines the Jews had created and adopted which were “doctrines of men”.

This model also explains your observation why “The evidence suggests that lines of demarcation between the two were far less clear and unequivocal than early Christian writings might suggest. “ and it explains (partly) why it is “not clear is whether Jewish converts to the Christian faith regarded themselves as "Christian Jews" or as "Jewish Christians," since, in this model, “Christianity”, as taught by the Messiah, was the most ancient and authentic form of “Judaism” or “Jahwism”, (whatever you want to call the most ancient religion).

Such a model would explain your comment regarding why “There were Jews who became Christians, yet observed purity laws, the Jewish Sabbath and circumcises their sons.”

Such a model explains why there are deep common elements to both religions such as the old testament texts (that both religions use).

Such a model also can help explain the principle underlying your point when you said: “To describe the relationship between Jews and Christians as a "parting of the ways" does not do justice to this diversity.”



In any rate, I liked your comments and realize it took some wonderful diligence to study such history, and, more importantly, to realize that such historical principles are still important and are more complex than most of us take the time to study.



Kuddos to you and I hope your own spiritual journey continues to be insightful and helps you form your own beliefs. Good luck Thomas.
 
Thomas, I hate to see the diligence that underlies your historical studies go undiscussed.
That's very generous of you!

However, as one historian to another, I think we are “unicorns” ...
LOL. I agree.

The recognition the messianic Judaism (and it’s factions) existed, allows John, as a messianic Jew, to honestly claim that he is both a proper Jew despite his criticism of other “Jews”.
Strong's lexicon says "Ἰουδαῖος Ioudaîos, Judæan, i.e. belonging to Jehudah:—Jew(-ess), of Judæa." Hart, in his translation of the NT, prefers 'Judæans' rather than the more common 'Jews', being technically more accurate, and in his view refers to the Jerusalem 'elite' who were hand-in-glove with the Romans.

2) JESUS AND THE MESSIANIC "JEWS/CHRISTIANS" AS A RESTORATIONISTS/REFORMERS, RATHER THAN AS CREATORS OF A "NEW RELIGION"

IF Jesus was trying to reform the Judaism of his day and thus restore the Judaism of his day to an earlier and more correct form of Jahwism (that the Jews had strayed from), then Johns criticism of Judaism of his day is understandable.
I wonder if we can see Jesus as a 'reformer' and 'restorer', but one who is forward-facing rather than backward-facing?

This model of restoration or reformation makes perfect historical sense in that it explains that Jesus and John and Paul saw themselves as trying to bring the Judaism of their day back to the ancient principles the Jews had, over time, abandoned or misinterpreted and contaminated with doctrines they, themselves, created.
I'm not against this view, but we would have to discuss what 'ancient principles' precisely. Paul, as I understand him, saw Jesus signalling the next phase, as it were, of Jewish revelation, with the incorporation of the Gentiles.

Such a model would explain your comment regarding why “There were Jews who became Christians, yet observed purity laws, the Jewish Sabbath and circumcises their sons.”
Agreed, but neither Peter, James nor Paul though the Gentile were not bound bhy the Law as Jews were, and circumcission was not a necessity?

+++

The principal source for this thread is David Armstrong – following scholars like David Litwa. His contention is that the Gospel of John was written in Alexandria, mid 2nd century, by an Alexandrian Jew, more 'Hellenised' (akin to Philo, from whom he derives his Logos theology), than the Jerusalem Jews who were more 'traditionally' Pharisaic and Saduccee.

Litwa's Gospel of John argues that the author of John used the 'anonymous eye-witness' as an invented persona in reference to the Synoptics (to overcome synoptic objections), and that he not only invented teachings but also modified or invented narratives to present an apocryphal gospel alongside the synoptic.

I personally don't agree with that. Especially with the idea that this 'John' used travel literature and other references to acquaint himself with the geography of both the Temple and the locality.

I prefer Orthodox Archpriest Fr John Behr's "Paschal Gospel", although I have a lot of work to do to unpack that one.

Good luck and God speed @Clear, on your theological journey!
 
1) THE CONCEPT OF PROPHETS IN THEIR ROLE AS REFORMERS / RESTORERS OF AUTHENTIC RELIGION
Thomas said: "I wonder if we can see Jesus as a 'reformer' and 'restorer', but one who is forward-facing rather than backward-facing?"


I’m not sure what you mean.
It feels (to me) that Jesus was aware to some extent, of past, present, and future.

For example, he not only seemed aware of the contaminations and accretions to the Judaism of his day (Matt 15:9) but he seemed aware of the intent of the ancient gospel before the Jews added to the original religion in both rule and intent. Jesus seems also aware of past religion: “Moses permitted you to divorce… But it was not this way from the beginning.” Matt 19:8.

The breadth of his spiritual and religious awareness seemed (to me) to touch on past, present, and future.

Like all other prophets, when Jesus was unable to reform Jewish religion, partly because his reformed/restored set of principles were seen as “a new and distinct” type of Judaism (even a different religion) though early Christians saw themselves as the authentic form of Judaism as Ignatius taught: "It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity,...” (Ignatius to the Magnesians 10:3)




2) THE APOSTLES INITIALLY SOUGHT TO CONVINCE THE JEWS CHRIST AND HIS TEACHING WERE THE TEACHINGS OF THE MESSIAH ISRAEL AWAITED AND HIS TEACHINGS WERE THE TRUEST FORM OF JAHWISM (I.E. THE RELIGION INTENDED BY JEHOVAH)


Clear: This model of restoration or reformation makes perfect historical sense in that it explains that Jesus and John and Paul saw themselves as trying to bring the Judaism of their day back to the ancient principles the Jews had, over time, abandoned or misinterpreted and contaminated with doctrines they, themselves, created.

Thomas: I'm not against this view, but we would have to discuss what 'ancient principles' precisely. Paul, as I understand him, saw Jesus signalling the next phase, as it were, of Jewish revelation, with the incorporation of the Gentiles.

The ancient principles I am referring to involve reforming the Rabbinic Judaism of his day by denouncing the hypocrisy that had contaminated religion and teaching the Jews what the real purpose of earlier religious laws and what it really meant to fulfill those ancient laws.

Jesus seemed to try to clean the Rabbinic form of Judaism of his day of its man-made accretions and rules, and sought to rid the Judaism of his day of its economic injustice oppression and treatment of the poor.

Jesus seemed to want to help the Judaism of his day to understand the change that must take place inside the heart and mind of the believer

All of these are ancient religious principles.





Clear: Such a model would explain your comment regarding why “There were Jews who became Christians, yet observed purity laws, the Jewish Sabbath and circumcises their sons.”

Thomas: Agreed, but neither Peter, James nor Paul though the Gentile were not bound bhy the Law as Jews were, and circumcission was not a necessity?


I think it took some time for some of the Christian Jews to let go of their prior traditions.

For example, the Apostle Peters convert Clement, (who was also a co-worker with the apostle Paul) relates that when he met Peter, he was not, initially allowed to eat with the Messianic Jew, Peter, who was still reluctant to eat with pagans at that point.

Even Peter himself, (as described in his vision of Acts 10), has trouble, initially, with the concept that the gentiles could be made clean as the Jews could and requires some spiritual instruction in order to accept this truth.
 
The breadth of his spiritual and religious awareness seemed (to me) to touch on past, present, and future.
Oh, for sure. Jesus observed the Law, but in spirit, rather than the letter (cf 2 Corinthians 3:6).

So Jesus' hard line against divorce (Matthew 19:8) should be balanced against Jesus' refusal to condemn the woman taken in adultery (John 8:11). Whether her accusers are themselves guilty or not is, in the ey of the law, immaterial – the fact is she's an adulterer, and thus should be punished accordingly. Then there is his commendation of eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:12).

There is much talk on the Jewish rules concerning divorce, and what was acceptable and what wasn't. The disciples found this tough:
"The disciples say to him, 'If such is the responsibility of a man with a wife, it is not profitable to marry.' But he said to them, 'Not all can accept this saying – save those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were gelded by men, and there are eunuchs who gelded themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the heavens. Let him who can accept this accept it.' "(Matthew 19:10-12) The koine Greek is εὐνουχίζω, 'to castrate'.

Like all other prophets, when Jesus was unable to reform Jewish religion, partly because his reformed/restored set of principles were seen as “a new and distinct” type of Judaism (even a different religion) though early Christians saw themselves as the authentic form of Judaism ...
Agreed. And in so doing he did institute a New Commandment, which was quite a bold act.

This model of restoration or reformation makes perfect historical sense in that it explains that Jesus and John and Paul saw themselves as trying to bring the Judaism of their day back to the ancient principles the Jews had, over time, abandoned or misinterpreted and contaminated with doctrines they, themselves, created.
Agreed.

The ancient principles I am referring to involve reforming the Rabbinic Judaism of his day by denouncing the hypocrisy that had contaminated religion and teaching the Jews what the real purpose of earlier religious laws and what it really meant to fulfill those ancient laws.

Jesus seemed to try to clean the Rabbinic form of Judaism of his day of its man-made accretions and rules, and sought to rid the Judaism of his day of its economic injustice oppression and treatment of the poor.

Jesus seemed to want to help the Judaism of his day to understand the change that must take place inside the heart and mind of the believer

All of these are ancient religious principles.
Agreed.

I think it took some time for some of the Christian Jews to let go of their prior traditions.

Even Peter himself, (as described in his vision of Acts 10), has trouble, initially, with the concept that the gentiles could be made clean as the Jews could and requires some spiritual instruction in order to accept this truth.
Oh, for sure. But Peter came round to it, as did James. But without doubt these changes weren't 'overnight'.

And then we get heterodox Jewish groups embracing vegetarianism, which is not historically a Jewish thing.

There was a lot going on!
 
Back
Top