Here.
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.1 [Emphasis in original.]
What if someone were to say that about the Bible?
Our willingness to accept biblical teachings that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between faith and unbelief. We take the side of Scripture in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the existence of unsubstantiated just so stories in Scripture, because we have a prior commitment to Scripture's inerrancy. It is not that the methods and institutions of biblical study somehow compel us to accept only interpretations which are in accordance with the Bible's inerrancy, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to biblical inerrancy to create a method of biblical study that [produces explanations that are consistent with inerrancy, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, our commitment to inerrancy is absolute, for we cannot allow doubt to get its foot in the door. For anyone doubting the Word of God in any respect will end up doubting it in all respects.
49 comments:
""
Not necessarily so. I've read several volumes of biblical commentary by Daniel Berrigan over the years, and he frequently argues with Scripture. And this from one of the most devout Christians of the last century!
By chance, I happen to be reading his commentary on Amos right now, and here, for example, is his comment on Amos 2:9 - "A terrible verse [...] God is not clearly seen, not yet; is hardly distinguished from the gods, the idols, the 'works of our hands' [...] The matter should be put plainly. Unwelcome the text, and unsavory."
Yet Berrigan will still staunchly defend Amos 2:9 as the very word of God. (You have to read the entire chapter to understand his reasoning.)
Don't know how it happened, but somehow the beginning to my last comment got lost.
Here is how it should have looked:
"For anyone doubting the Word of God in any respect will end up doubting it in all respects."
Not necessarily so. I've read several volumes of biblical commentary by Daniel Berrigan over the years, and he frequently argues with Scripture. And this from one of the most devout Christians of the last century!
By chance, I happen to be reading his commentary on Amos right now, and here, for example, is what he has to say about Amos 2:9 - "A terrible verse [...] God is not clearly seen, not yet; is hardly distinguished from the gods, the idols, the 'works of our hands' [...] The matter should be put plainly. Unwelcome the text, and unsavory."
Yet Berrigan will still staunchly defend Amos 2:9 as the very word of God. (You have to read the entire chapter to understand his reasoning.)
Starhopper,
Is it that Berrigan would have phrased it differently than the author of Amos?
It think it's more complex than that. Berrigan seems to believe that the Holy Spirit wants us to be appalled by the writing, to wrestle with it, and to discern how even contrary ideas can nevertheless highlight Divine Truth.
I'm not totally on board with this idea (if, that is, I've even understand it correctly). It seems all too easy to say that anything in Scripture that make you uncomfortable ought to be interpreted contrary to what it actually says.
But I did bring Berrigan up as an example of an unquestionably devout Christian who prized the Bible above all other writings, who nevertheless had deep misgivings about much that is in it.
Keep in mind that this is not a matter of taking parts of Scripture allegorically or figuratively (versus a wooden literalism), but of at times contradicting the very message of the Prophets.
OK. I'm not sure I understand what he's getting at either.
But it would be fair to say that no human has a grasp on all the writings in the Bible. It is, after all, a "library" filled with books from different genres in different original languages written during different eras over a large span of time.
And it would be fair to point out that followers of Jesus Himself were appalled at his discourse on the Bread of Life and left him.
Keep in mind that this is not a matter of taking parts of Scripture allegorically or figuratively (versus a wooden literalism), but of at times contradicting the very message of the Prophets.
I won't comment on Berrigan's stance since I haven't read him, but sometimes things that look like a contradiction aren't really.
Regarding the OP:
And he asks us to do this because the reality of such phenomena is incompatible with the scientific materialism that in his view sets the outer bounds of reality.
Yet he personally experiences the first person perspective. So he apparently doesn't even believe "his own lying eyes". It seems that sometimes obviously incoherent views gain popularity in philosophy. Logical positivism comes to mind.
Reminds me of a joke I heard once. (I hope I get this right.)
A philosophy student asks his professor, "Do I really exist?" and the professor answers, "Who wants to know?"
Haha. Are all philosophy jokes as bad as Dad jokes?
"For anyone doubting the Word of God in any respect will end up doubting it in all respects."
I do not understand why anyone would ever think this must be so. It's like saying if the Orioles allow the Red Sox to drive in a run, then the entire game is lost. Alternatively, as Frederick the Great said, "He who would defend everything, defends nothing."
The idea that one cannot "give an inch" is the false attitude of the fundamentalist. In internet debate, I usually find it's the atheist who insists that I am obliged to read the Bible with a wooden literalism. Doubting one's interpretation of Scripture is not only sensible, but close to mandatory for a Christian.
During the Civil War, Gen. Sherman perceived that by 1864 the South had thrown everything it had into the front lines, with nothing whatsoever in reserve to defend the interior. So once he managed to break through the hard crust of Confederate resistance at Atlanta, there was absolutely nothing between his army and, not only Savannah, but also Richmond. So from thereon to the end of the war, Sherman rampaged basically unopposed through Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Had the war continued for another month, he would have achieved a link up with Grant in Virginia.
The same fate awaits any believer who is unwilling to doubt. He's thrown everything into the front lines, with no ability to defend in depth.
So watch out when you're debating the Bible or Sherman will get you!
I think this week you should give up reading military history. It's coloring your commentary :-)
Give up military history for Lent? Now that's a Bridge Too Far!
Despite having written a unique history of the 1942 invasion of Morocco, I do not claim to be a "military historian". I was by chance working in the Pentagon in the mid-1990s, and had a researcher's pass to the National Archives and to the US Navy records from WWII. They had a hard and fast rule at that time. You were allowed access to a particular document, once and only once. You were to copy that document, and do all further research from your copy. (These things were incredibly brittle and could fall apart in your hands, if you weren't careful.)
Well. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 911 happened to plough straight into the Pentagon library, and all the documents I had been studying were burned up. So by good fortune, I am in possession of the ONLY copies in the world of the original after-action reports of the Battle of Port Lyautey in Morocco. My book is based on those records.
Nice try. You almost had me there. Everyone knows the Pentagon plane crash was a fake.
That's OK. I always figured you for a 911 truther. But more importantly, what's your opinion about the Grassy Knoll and the 2nd Shooter?
J D Tippit according to the newly released Warren Commission documents.
I'm just a few pages away from reading a most interesting book, Why Four Gospels? by David Alan black. Black champions the Matthew-Luke-Mark-John order of the Gospels being written, and he makes a pretty darn good case for it. Other than the book being a bit overly repetitious, it's a great read. From the preface, I get that it wasn't "written to be a book" but is rather a compilation of classroom lecture notes. Probably accounts for all the repetition.
Anyway, if like me, you've always been skeptical of the "Q" hypothesis, this book will definitely give you grounds to justify your skepticism.
"Q" always sounded like a contrived invention to me.
You've got to start from the mindset of thinking all of the historical narratives of the origins of the Synoptics were all made up. Then actually make up your own theory which in turn requires the existence of a book that no one in history ever made mention of. The Early Church Fathers mentioned a ton of Gnostic stories, even some that had disappeared in history and then re-appeared more recently. So if they mentioned all those other books but not this one, why not? Because it never existed?
Guess that makes me a "Q" conspiracy theorist.
bmiller said...
J D Tippit according to the newly released Warren Commission documents.
One random informant does not represent the conclusion of the Warren, and as much as I distrust the police generally, I don't make light of them dying in the cause of duty.
bmiller said...
You've got to start from the mindset of thinking all of the historical narratives of the origins of the Synoptics were all made up.
Not at all. You can certainly hold the position that Mark recorded what people told him 30+ years after the fact, and tied it together into a narrative, while ccepting Q and Markan priority.
Then actually make up your own theory which in turn requires the existence of a book that no one in history ever made mention of.
There's no reason to think that Q was a single work.
"Mark recorded what people told him 30+ years after the fact"
Two points about the above. First off, it wasn't "people" who told Mark, but Peter, the chief witness to the events of Christ's Earthly life. Secondly, although I agree that Mark was published 30+ years after the Resurrection, it was likely written over a stretch of some years prior to that date.
(This by the way, goes doubly so for the Gospel according to John. Although I have no quarrel with dating its publication in the 90s, I greatly suspect that it was written over the space of several decades, and not necessarily in the order that we now have it. For example, John 5:1-18 was almost certainly written before the destruction of Jerusalem, because it references the Pool of Bethzatha as still existing. But it was reduced to rubble by the Romans in A.D. 70. This has been archaeologically confirmed.)
It would take far longer than a simple blog comment to go into detail, but I agree with those who say that Matthew was written first (and almost immediately after the Resurrection - sometime in the late 30s). Luke was compiled over a several year period and completed prior to Paul's time in Rome (A.D. 60-64). Mark was completed in the early 60s, but not published until after the death of Peter (between A.D. 64 and 68). John likely began writing his Gospel in the mid-60s, and completed it in the 90s.
That sequence of events best matches what we know of 1st Century Christianity. Matthew writes at a time when the overwhelming percentage of Christians were Jews. Luke writes later when there is a need to re-present the story to be relevant to former pagans. Mark is a special case, being basically the reminiscences of Peter, as recorded by Mark. John, satisfied that the events of Christ's ministry have already been adequately recorded in the 1st three Gospels, writes an account that emphasizes the meaning of these events (yet, paradoxically, is the most detailed in relating those events he does include).
It would take far longer than a simple blog comment to go into detail, but I agree with those who say that Matthew was written first (and almost immediately after the Resurrection - sometime in the late 30s). Luke was compiled over a several year period and completed prior to Paul's time in Rome (A.D. 60-64). Mark was completed in the early 60s, but not published until after the death of Peter (between A.D. 64 and 68). John likely began writing his Gospel in the mid-60s, and completed it in the 90s.
This order is not the traditional order, but some Early Church Fathers ordered it this way with Luke coming before Mark. Since you list both in the span 60-68 AD it's easy to see why there was disagreement. I reality, there was no Peguin Random House that officially released the publication of either with the date stamped on the first page, so it's merely a quibble as to which "actually" came first.
However, regarding John and his finishing it in the 90's. Why wouldn't John mention the destruction of the Temple (AD 70) at all even if he had started early than the destruction and finished after. In fact none of the Gospels mention it even though mentioning it as a historical fact would have been a natural thing to do since it showed the fulfilment of Jesus' prophecy. It was common for early Christians to point out how Christ fulfilled various prophecies. Why not this one?
I've heard your reasoning used to argue for a pre-A.D. 70 dating of John, but I think the destruction of the Temple was irrelevant to John's purpose. Notice that he says absolutely nothing about "current events" in his Gospel. No mention of the Roman rulers other than Pilate, no mention of Herod, no mention of the power struggles between the Pharisees and Sadducees (more partisan and all-consuming than today's battles between Democrats and Republicans). And most significantly, no eschatological discourse (so no need to show any prophecies fulfilled since none were made).
John is quite a paradox. On one level, it is the most broadly based and wide ranging, beginning before time began and encompassing eternity. Yet it is also the most narrowly focused - just 6 miracles compared to countless healings in the Synoptics, only two or three very brief parables as opposed to dozens, and intensely detailed dialogs absent from the other 3 Gospels.
(Side note: Those dialogs are one of the things that most convince me of the historicity of John. I've read them aloud, and even in translation they sound like real conversations between people of distinctive personalities.)
John is pretty clear that his purpose is not to rehash the other Gospels, but he records quite a few of Jesus's prophecies and their fulfillment, so why not this one since the Synoptics missed it? The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was the most momentous and traumatic recent historical event to happen to the Jewish people, yet no mention in any Gospel? John was a Jew and didn't even mention it in passing? Very hard to believe.
The only prophesies that Jesus made in John that I can recall were about Himself, such as Judas's betrayal, the Passion, the Resurrection, the Descent of the Holy Spirit, and that His Apostles would be "hated by the world". But none of those are concerned with what I would consider "world events" in a news perspective. Are those the "quite a few" that you are referring to?
Yes the prophesies were about Himself, just like the prophesy of the destruction of the Temple was about His death and resurrection.
But let's ask a different question. What evidence is there for a late dating of John other than that it was admittedly after the other Gospels? If the other Gospels were after the destruction of the Temple, then of course John's would be also. But if all the other Gospels were before that, then John's Gospel could be also. Why should we automatically default to an assumption that was born of the anti-miracle mindset of the Enlightenment?
The late dating of John goes all the way back to the Early Church Fathers.
Irenaeus (who is most specific about the matter) wrote that St. John wrote his Gospel while living in Ephesus. Tradition says that John first moved to Ephesus in A.D. 64, but after the martyrdom of St. Peter (and most probably after the Assumption of Mary, since he was her guardian), John traveled about Asia Minor for some years, only returning to Ephesus in the year 90. So in my humble opinion, he probably first set pen to paper (so to speak) in the mid-60s (his 1st stay in Ephesus), but didn't finish his Gospel until after 90 (His 2nd stay). This fits in nicely with the consensus opinion that the works of John were written in reverse order than how they're presented in the NT. (I.e., 3 John is oldest, followed by 2 John, then 1 John (all of which were written during his missionary travels), and finally the Gospel.
ALL the other Church Fathers, right up to Saints Jerome and Augustine, are unanimous in listing John as the last to be written, but are silent as to its date.
Tradition says that John first moved to Ephesus in A.D. 64, but after the martyrdom of St. Peter
I hadn't heard of this. Can you please tell me the source? Irenaeus places him in Ephesus, but not at particular date as far as I know. Even so, this would indicate the earliest possible date, not the latest.
There is both internal evidence that it was written before Jerusalem was destroyed.
For instance John 5:1-7:
Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda[a] and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3 Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. [4] [b] 5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?”
7 “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.”
The present tense is used, indicating that John is unaware of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
The Muratorian Fragment indicates that Andrew the Apostle was alive when the Gospel was started. Why would it take 25 years to complete?
The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it.
I'll have to admit that I got the dates for St. John's time in Ephesus from a commercial tourist site about Ephesus (ephesus.us).
The Gospel didn't "have" to be written over a 30 year period, but there is no reason to say it couldn't have been. There are many, many examples of literary works where the writer took his entire life to complete (The Aeneid, Canterbury Tales, Gordon Dickson's Dorsai novels, The Silmarillion, Leiva-Merikakis's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, to name a few).
I'm curious. Why are you so convinced the late dating is wrong? I'll have to admit that my own motivation for believing it is mostly just a gut feeling. It just "feels" like it's a late addition to the NT (and probably the last thing in the Bible to have been written). And really, what more is there for God to say after John?
By the way, what do you make of the most curious case of John 5:4? It seems to be utter nonsense, but the whole paragraph simply doesn't flow without it, and by leaving it out, verse 7 just hangs there.
I'm actually not convinced the late date is wrong but I'm not convinced it's right either.
I agree that it could have been written over a 30 year period, but is that normal? For a Gospel that he was urged to write? It seems at least one reason to write it was to correct the errors of the Ebonites and/or Cerinthus. There is evidence Paul wrote against Cerinthus also, so obviously before his death. I suppose he could have written the bulk of it, and released a first draft while the Temple still stood and then tweaked it late in life without adjusting the verse that has the the pool still existing.
Regarding John 5:4, I assume you mean this verse:
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
It seems some manuscripts have it and some don't (my quote above didn't). One commentator I read mentioned it in defense of a early dating of John. The reasoning is as follows:
The lame man's reply to Jesus would make sense to people who were familiar with the pool (and the belief that when an angel stirred the water the first in would be healed), but not to people years after the pool had been destroyed. So this verse was added in a later revision to give context to the dialog. This explanation would fit into your 30-years of writing theory.
Regardless, a earlier dating of John's gospel would not necessarily mean it was not a late addition. I could have come after the death of Peter and Paul and before the destruction of the Temple.
OK, looks like verse 5:4 is not in the most ancient manuscripts.
In that case, it wouldn't have been added by John at all, but by some later copyist, probably to explain the context. I probably misread what the commentator I mentioned above actually wrote.
All good comments! As I hope that I've made clear (I'm not good at doing that), I'm not wedded to a late date, but I see nothing to convince me of an earlier dating.
I love the explanation you found for 5:4. Never head that one before, but it makes a lot of sense. It's similar to what I've read about the infamous "Johannine Comma" in 1 John. "There are three who give witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and Holy Spirit, and these three are one." The Holy Office decreed in 1927 that these words, although dogmatically correct, are not inspired text. (This is a rare instance of Protestants listening to the Magisterium. After 1927, nearly every Protestant denomination removed these words from their Bibles, or relegated them to a footnote. They remain in the King James Bible, however, as 1 John 5:7.)
As to lengthy composition periods, I'm personally familiar with that. I started my first book, Goalpost, in the middle and worked myself backwards and forwards to the beginning and the end. In fact, Chapter One was the last to be finished. My third book, Eyes to See, was written in a pretty much random order, and took several years to complete.
Starhopper said...
Two points about the above. First off, it wasn't "people" who told Mark, but Peter, the chief witness to the events of Christ's Earthly life.
Since we don't even know who Mark was, I don't see how you can make this conclusion historically. If you want to say there is a focus on Peter in Mark's gospel, I don't disagree, but this is not evidence of direct transmission.
Also, human memories are not tape recorders, and Peter was not a hermit. As he shared his reminiscences with fellow apostles, they would have changed over the years. For a modern equivalent, look at the differences in the historical records late 1820s Pennsylvania and what the Mormons were saying about those events in the late 1850s.
Secondly, although I agree that Mark was published 30+ years after the Resurrection, it was likely written over a stretch of some years prior to that date.
Your own dating for the writing (completed in the early 60s) puts it 30 years after the resurrection.
That sequence of events best matches what we know of 1st Century Christianity. Matthew writes at a time when the overwhelming percentage of Christians were Jews. Luke writes later when there is a need to re-present the story to be relevant to former pagans.
There is very little in Matthew that would have made it aimed at Jewish people.
I started my first book, Goalpost, in the middle and worked myself backwards and forwards to the beginning and the end.
That's OK....as long as you didn't move the Goalposts.
"Also, human memories are not tape recorders, and Peter was not a hermit. As he shared his reminiscences with fellow apostles, they would have changed over the years. "
Memory is far more persistent than you give it credit for. On November 3, 1960, I saw soon-to-be President Kennedy land at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. Today, almost 60 years after the event, I can still recall the most minor details of where I was, what I did, and what I saw. I can still see Kennedy walking across the tarmac toward the terminal. (We were, in those innocent days, on the roof, where we could see everything.) I can assure you that if I had seen someone rise from the dead, I would remember about it with the finest accuracy, even after 100 years.
"There is very little in Matthew that would have made it aimed at Jewish people."
Uh.. You either know very little about Judaism, or you have not been paying attention while reading Matthew. It practically screams of being intended for a Jewish audience, even down to very minor details. For instance, have you noticed that Matthew divides his Gospel into five sections, to mirror the Five Books of Moses in the Torah? To make sure his readers got the point, Matthew ended each of the five sections with practically identical language:
7:28 "And when Jesus finished these sayings..."
11:1 "And when Jesus had finished instructing his 12 disciples..."
19:1 "Now when Jesus had finished these sayings..."
26:1 "When Jesus had finished all these sayings..."
The last section ends with the end of the Gospel, and so requires no transitional verse.
(This was all written in haste, but I have much more to say about your comment. I hope to have the time later today.)
"That's OK....as long as you didn't move the Goalposts."
Unfortunately, they kept moving themselves. Otherwise I would have finished a lot faster.
bmiller,
As to lengthy composition periods, I know this is music and not writing, but the same principle holds. I was just reading about Ralph Vaughan Williams' opera The Poisoned Kiss and learned that he began composing it in 1927 and didn't "finish" it until 30 years later, in 1957. (And since he died the very next year, it's entirely possible that even then he wasn't actually finished with it.)
Gustav Mahler is another example of this. He was so obsessed with editing and re-writing his symphonies that years after their debut performances, he was still tinkering with them to the extent that musicians today cannot say for certain which of the many extant versions of his work is the "authentic" one. (This is a particular problem with his 6th Symphony, for which nearly a hundred radically differing manuscripts from the composer's own hand exist, many with truly major variations.)
So I can easily see John taking a few decades to come up with a Gospel that he was finally comfortable with releasing.
Starhopper said...
Memory is far more persistent than you give it credit for. On November 3, 1960, I saw soon-to-be President Kennedy land at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. Today, almost 60 years after the event, I can still recall the most minor details of where I was, what I did, and what I saw.
Were you today to write all those memories down, and then watch a video recording of the event, you would likely be startled with all of the details you have been getting wrong. Of course, that's not an attack on you, just noting you're a human.
I can assure you that if I had seen someone rise from the dead, I would remember about it with the finest accuracy, even after 100 years.
I assure you that I believe you think you are relaying the truth, but human cognitive science says otherwise.
Uh.. You either know very little about Judaism, or you have not been paying attention while reading Matthew. It practically screams of being intended for a Jewish audience, even down to very minor details.
That is what they taught us in high school. I've also read a few work on how that does not hold up to close scrutiny. Seriously, the number of sections? That's supposed to make it appealing?
Starhopper,
So do you think that John released multiple editions over time, or just one big blast at the end of his life? I think the former seems more probable than the later.
He most certainly preached during his entire life and must have related all the content in his Gospels multiple times. Just like Mark listened to Peter deliver the same "stump speeches" over and over again and wrote them down, it's not unlikely that John wrote his content down along the way also and released them. Maybe he edited new editions as he got feedback.
BTW, Eusebius reported that John reviewed Mark's gospel and verified the stories, but mentioned that the stories were not necessarily in chronological order. John attributed that to the fact that Mark was not a direct witness to the events and so when Peter gave his "stump speeches" Mark had no way of knowing the chronology.
The problem with the idea that John might have issued multiple editions is, "Where are those earlier editions?" That the 1st Christians saved every scrap of paper (so to speak) from the Apostles is demonstrated by the fact that we have 2nd and 3rd John today. They are practically void of content, and add nothing to the NT that cannot be found elsewhere. But they were by John, and that was reason enough for the Early Church to lovingly preserve them. If variant editions of John existed, I think we'd have them.
If variant editions of John existed, I think we'd have them.
Not necessarily. The lack of "Q" editions doesn't stop people from positing it's existence and the earliest "original" NT document we have is maybe from around 100 AD. Paper decays and being a copyist during a persecution is hazardous.
But maybe you're right that there was only one version. In that case, since be was urged by the Asia Minor bishops and disciples to write it and since Andrew was moved to suggest John write the gospel and they should all review it, it's more likely that the one version was earlier. Andrew's year of death is held to be 60 AD, so the commission was certainly before that. If he waited to release it until 90 AD, then no one would have been alive to review it.
Is John's Gospel pro-Jewish (Jn. 4:22):
"You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."
or anti-Jewish (Jn. 8:44)
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
A Jewish perspective.
Very interesting article. I recall a strange event that occurred to me about 8 years ago, when it occurred to me that if you substituted "Jewish authorities" for "Jews" in John (in most cases, but not all), the text made much more sense. For example "the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jewish authorities" (or even just "the authorities") seemed closer to the sense of the passage than "for fear of the Jews." Especially since the Apostles themselves were all Jews.
And almost immediately afterward, I read (by pure coincidence?) one scholar who complained about how people translated John, explaining that there were two different words John uses for "Jews". The first meant simply "Jews" but the second meant the "Jewish authorities".
It's a similar argument to what Dr. Lizorkin-Eyzenberg is making in the linked article.
The accusation that the Gospel of John was antisemitic never made sense to me, considering it was written by a Jew, the disciples were all Jews, and Jesus was a Jew. From the beginning I assumed that the problem was entirely in the way we read the book, not in the book itself.
The accusation that the Gospel of John was antisemitic never made sense to me, considering it was written by a Jew, the disciples were all Jews, and Jesus was a Jew.
Exactly. Me neither.
But the apparent anti-Jewishness of the Gospel is one big reason a lot of "modern" scholars place it after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. They hypothesize that it was only after the destruction of the Temple that Christians considered themselves different from "the Jews". The Christians, and Christ himself, were always at odds with certain Jewish authorities.
That article is a section from Dr. Lizorkin-Eyzenberg's book The Jewish Gospel of John: Discovering Jesus, King of All Israel I think. The book looks interesting from the reviews on Amazon.
Wish me luck, everyone. I need to be hospitalized for an issue unrelated to COVID-19. A hospital is the last place in the world I want to be in the midst of a hypercontagious pandemic, but my doctors tell me it is necessary. So you probably won't be hearing from me for a few days (or, in the worst case, ever again).
I've decided I needed something "outdoorsy" to read while I'm there, so I'm bringing along Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi. It's been on my bookshelf forever, but I've never gotten around to actually reading it. A few days of enforced idleness ought to do the trick.
Starhopper,
My daughter was hospitalized for appendicitis 10 days ago. It was very lonely (no visitors, reduced contact, etc.).
Get well soon.
Get well Starhopper.
The hospitals are very good at isolating Covid-19 patients and there are actually fewer people around to spread other diseases. You should be safe from that, but I hope you recover from your current condition.
Post a Comment