Reading through Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament. For previous summaries:
Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism
Luke-Acts and Anti-Judaism
Now chapter 4, John. Of all the books of the New Testament, John is the one most open to charges of antisemitism and anti-Judaism. "The Jews" in John are often synonymous with "the world" in John, which is diametrically opposed to God. The term is used some 70 times in John. They want to kill Jesus, and their father is the devil. Clearly it was easy enough at least for later readers to see in these words a completely negative designation of Jews not only as a religion (anti-Judaism) but as a race (antisemitism). As Gregory Baum once put it, "many generations of John's readers have perceived the Gospel as encouraging them to look with contempt on the Jewish people" (81).
There are some potentially mediating factors. The word sometimes has a neutral sense (about a dozen times). Sometimes the word means "Judean" rather than Jew. In a number of the most pejorative instances, "the Jews" seem to be the religious authorities in Jerusalem.
The relationship to Gentiles is not straightforward. The word Gentile never appears in John. Almost all of those who follow Jesus in John are themselves Jews. Still, John explains things that a Jew would know, implying that it is written so that Gentiles could read it. The majority position on the "sheep not of this fold" verse is that it refers to Gentiles.
I posted yesterday matters relating to the possible history of John both as a document and as a community. These sorts of issues potentially impact the way we understand John's use of language like "the Jews." For example, if the scholarly consensus is correct, then John's community at some point was forced out of mainstream Jewish synagogues. So Baum once argued that "the Gospel needs to be read as a response to a painful exclusion rather than as an attempt to force and hasten a separation" (84).
Donaldson concludes the chapter thinking about John rhetorically. He believes that 20:31 most likely should be rendered, "these are written so that you might continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ" and thus that John addressed an internal community (contra Bauckham). As such, we have an inner-Jewish debate rather than an externally driven anti-Judaism.
It would be fun to explore further, but this is where our discussion of Donaldson's chapter ends.
Showing posts with label antisemitism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antisemitism. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Luke-Acts and Anti-Judaism.
Next installment of Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament. For previous summaries:
Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism
Today is Luke-Acts and, once again, Donaldson does not disappoint in terms of giving us an excellent "lay of the land." Once again, he captures three basic perspectives:
1. Israel rejected and replaced by the church.
Luke does not have a verse like Matthew 27:25, but the book of Acts does end with a very strong turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles. Coming as it does at the climax of Acts, one could (and many have) easily argued that Luke-Acts is a story of a definitive rejection of Jesus by the Jews with a definitive turning away from Israel thereafter.
In this reading, Luke starts full of hope. Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon--they all looked to the consolation of Israel and the redemption of Jerusalem. But alas, Ernst Haenchen argued that by the end of Acts, Luke has written off the Jews in favor of the Gentiles. Luke-Acts taken in its totality pictures God as done with Israel.
2. Purged Israel joined by the Gentile church
The moderating view is that, following Jacob Jervell, the mission to Israel is a success and then the mission moves on to the Gentiles. Sure, not all Israel ends up saved, but those who are to be saved within Israel are. "The picture that Luke presents, then, is not of Israel's rejection but of its division" (65). A purged and repentant Israel thus fulfill the expectations of people like Zechariah and Simeon. Now the mission can continue to the Gentiles.
3. Israel and church in tension
I'm not sure that I like this way of titling the third option, but it is the one that I favor. In this interpretation, Luke-Acts looks to some future time for the fulfillment of some predictions.
[As an aside, I do not form this conclusion as a dispensationalist. I form it on the basis of inductive Bible study. I do enjoy the fact that, at least on one score, it vindicates the lowly Dallas types over the haughty WTS types]
Jesus answer to his disciples in Acts 1:6 is not, "You're wrong to think some earthly kingdom is still coming to Israel." His answer is, "in God's time." Similarly, mention of a "times of the Gentiles until..." in Luke 21:24. The implication is that, at the end of time, God will restore political Israel and the nation will turn to Christ. The turning away at the end of Acts signals the full advent of the times of the Gentiles, not a permanent abandonment. This interpretation, by the way, fits very well with Paul in Romans 11 as well.
[Again, I say this as a Bible-head, not as a modern prophecy teacher. Any attempt to equate modern Israel with the Israel of these texts is problematic because modern Israel does not accept Jesus as messiah.]
Some of the question of tone then has to do with the social location of "Luke" and his audience (remembering that the work never identifies its author). It is generally accepted that the author was a Gentile (although even here I think the case is not as clear as often assumed). It is generally accepted that the author is writing after the fall of Jerusalem, perhaps 80's.
As far as rhetorical features, Donaldson mentions a number, including that Luke-Acts is apologetic history, that it is favorable to the Romans, that it stresses continuity with Israel. Donaldson does not, however, give a conclusion on whether it aimed at outsiders or insiders. Is Theophilus a patron? A potential convert? A symbolic name? A Roman official?
As for me, I do think Acts has a tendency to blame "the Jews" for the trouble that followed early Christians like Paul, but at the same time it is very positive toward Christian Jews like James. Indeed, Luke-Acts favors a more "conservative" form of Christianity in relation to Judaism than Paul, in my opinion. I do not think anti-Judaism is an appropriate term, especially since the kingdom will be restored to Israel in the final time.
Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism
Today is Luke-Acts and, once again, Donaldson does not disappoint in terms of giving us an excellent "lay of the land." Once again, he captures three basic perspectives:
1. Israel rejected and replaced by the church.
Luke does not have a verse like Matthew 27:25, but the book of Acts does end with a very strong turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles. Coming as it does at the climax of Acts, one could (and many have) easily argued that Luke-Acts is a story of a definitive rejection of Jesus by the Jews with a definitive turning away from Israel thereafter.
In this reading, Luke starts full of hope. Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon--they all looked to the consolation of Israel and the redemption of Jerusalem. But alas, Ernst Haenchen argued that by the end of Acts, Luke has written off the Jews in favor of the Gentiles. Luke-Acts taken in its totality pictures God as done with Israel.
2. Purged Israel joined by the Gentile church
The moderating view is that, following Jacob Jervell, the mission to Israel is a success and then the mission moves on to the Gentiles. Sure, not all Israel ends up saved, but those who are to be saved within Israel are. "The picture that Luke presents, then, is not of Israel's rejection but of its division" (65). A purged and repentant Israel thus fulfill the expectations of people like Zechariah and Simeon. Now the mission can continue to the Gentiles.
3. Israel and church in tension
I'm not sure that I like this way of titling the third option, but it is the one that I favor. In this interpretation, Luke-Acts looks to some future time for the fulfillment of some predictions.
[As an aside, I do not form this conclusion as a dispensationalist. I form it on the basis of inductive Bible study. I do enjoy the fact that, at least on one score, it vindicates the lowly Dallas types over the haughty WTS types]
Jesus answer to his disciples in Acts 1:6 is not, "You're wrong to think some earthly kingdom is still coming to Israel." His answer is, "in God's time." Similarly, mention of a "times of the Gentiles until..." in Luke 21:24. The implication is that, at the end of time, God will restore political Israel and the nation will turn to Christ. The turning away at the end of Acts signals the full advent of the times of the Gentiles, not a permanent abandonment. This interpretation, by the way, fits very well with Paul in Romans 11 as well.
[Again, I say this as a Bible-head, not as a modern prophecy teacher. Any attempt to equate modern Israel with the Israel of these texts is problematic because modern Israel does not accept Jesus as messiah.]
Some of the question of tone then has to do with the social location of "Luke" and his audience (remembering that the work never identifies its author). It is generally accepted that the author was a Gentile (although even here I think the case is not as clear as often assumed). It is generally accepted that the author is writing after the fall of Jerusalem, perhaps 80's.
As far as rhetorical features, Donaldson mentions a number, including that Luke-Acts is apologetic history, that it is favorable to the Romans, that it stresses continuity with Israel. Donaldson does not, however, give a conclusion on whether it aimed at outsiders or insiders. Is Theophilus a patron? A potential convert? A symbolic name? A Roman official?
As for me, I do think Acts has a tendency to blame "the Jews" for the trouble that followed early Christians like Paul, but at the same time it is very positive toward Christian Jews like James. Indeed, Luke-Acts favors a more "conservative" form of Christianity in relation to Judaism than Paul, in my opinion. I do not think anti-Judaism is an appropriate term, especially since the kingdom will be restored to Israel in the final time.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Matthew and anti-Judaism 2
I'm reading through Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament. My summary of the first chapter is here: Introduction.
Today I want to summarize his again excellent chapter 2 on Matthew.
Donaldson ends up laying out three basic positions on the issue. But it is worthwhile to get the mother of all potentially anti-semitic verses out on the table before giving them, as he does: "Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matt. 27:25, NRSV). This verse has often been taken in Christian history as an indication that Jews remain perpetually under blame for the death of Jesus. Throughout history, people who call themselves Christians have used the verse as an excuse to persecute and kill Jews, just as some people would do toward homosexuals today hiding behind other verses.
The three positions are:
1. Rejection of ethnic Israel and replacement by a Gentile Church
This interpretation of Matthew sees God having bent over backwards to give Israel every opportunity to respond so that their final rejection and replacement are finally justified. In the end, the Church is almost completely Gentile. The Great Commission is understood to say, "Go and make disciples of all the Gentiles"... and not the Jews, by implication. This is a possible translation.
This interpretation sees a transition within the Gospel of Matthew from a beginning that still holds out hope for Israel to an end that has completely abandoned Israel. The Gospel begins with a genealogy that firmly connects Jesus to Israel. The mission in Matthew 10 is to the lost sheep of Israel and excludes Gentiles and Samaritans. Initially, Matthew distinguishes the leaders of Israel from the crowds. Then, in this interpretation, the distinction falls away at the time of crucifixion, where the crowds join the leaders. In this interpretation, the Great Commission now excludes Israel and the mission is now toward the Gentiles, with the Church fully replacing ethnic Israel, which is now soundly rejected. Some with this position might even argue that Matthew was written by a Gentile to a Gentile church.
2. Rejection of ethnic Israel and replacement by a Church with both Jews and Gentiles
This is a somewhat softer version of the replacement interpretation. Israel is rejected and replaced by a "third race" that is neither Jew nor Gentile. So "even if--as is quite likely--Matthew sees the destruction of Jerusalem as divine punishment on 'this generation' for its persecution of the line of prophets that culminates with Jesus (23.29-36), the idea of definitive rejection does not necessarily follow" (41).
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with this quote. The way Matthew has edited the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in 22:7 implies that Matthew was written after the destruction (compare the version in Luke 14). I see comments like 27:25 more as explanatory and backward looking than forward looking--this is why God allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed in the past. I can accept that it might also have functioned as a polemic against competing Jewish groups of the time (e.g., perhaps the Pharisees about to set up shop at Jamnia).
Against the "complete shift" version #1 above, this version argues that the people are once again distinguished from Israel's leaders after the crucifixion in 27:64. And throughout Matthew, the phrase "all the nations" presumably includes Israel (e.g., 25:32). Cannot the Great Commission be read as an extension of the mission to the nations rather than a shutting of the door to Israel?
3. The Church as the lost sheep of Israel, joined by Gentiles
This is my position and the one to which I believe Donaldson is most sympathetic. In this perspective, "Matthew has an Israel-centered view of the group to which he and his readers belong" (43). The author thus has a "remnant or sectarian outlook." The Gentiles thus join the restored portion of Israel rather than replacing them.
On the one hand, "Matthew seems to have little interest in those aspects of the law that would have differentiated Jew from Gentile (e.g., circumcision, food laws)" (44). On the other, he is quite keen to see Jesus bringing a fulfillment to the OT Scriptures, including its law. Matthew thus argues for the most meaningful kind of continuity between believers and the Israel of the past.
As far as the purpose of the rhetoric, most consider it "social formation." The goal is not so much to vilify others as to create internal group cohesion (kind of like when I go Wesleyan on the blog). Another interesting twist Donaldson mentions is the irony of Christ's blood being upon someone. Why yes, his blood is on us to save us from our sins (1:21)!
Today I want to summarize his again excellent chapter 2 on Matthew.
Donaldson ends up laying out three basic positions on the issue. But it is worthwhile to get the mother of all potentially anti-semitic verses out on the table before giving them, as he does: "Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matt. 27:25, NRSV). This verse has often been taken in Christian history as an indication that Jews remain perpetually under blame for the death of Jesus. Throughout history, people who call themselves Christians have used the verse as an excuse to persecute and kill Jews, just as some people would do toward homosexuals today hiding behind other verses.
The three positions are:
1. Rejection of ethnic Israel and replacement by a Gentile Church
This interpretation of Matthew sees God having bent over backwards to give Israel every opportunity to respond so that their final rejection and replacement are finally justified. In the end, the Church is almost completely Gentile. The Great Commission is understood to say, "Go and make disciples of all the Gentiles"... and not the Jews, by implication. This is a possible translation.
This interpretation sees a transition within the Gospel of Matthew from a beginning that still holds out hope for Israel to an end that has completely abandoned Israel. The Gospel begins with a genealogy that firmly connects Jesus to Israel. The mission in Matthew 10 is to the lost sheep of Israel and excludes Gentiles and Samaritans. Initially, Matthew distinguishes the leaders of Israel from the crowds. Then, in this interpretation, the distinction falls away at the time of crucifixion, where the crowds join the leaders. In this interpretation, the Great Commission now excludes Israel and the mission is now toward the Gentiles, with the Church fully replacing ethnic Israel, which is now soundly rejected. Some with this position might even argue that Matthew was written by a Gentile to a Gentile church.
2. Rejection of ethnic Israel and replacement by a Church with both Jews and Gentiles
This is a somewhat softer version of the replacement interpretation. Israel is rejected and replaced by a "third race" that is neither Jew nor Gentile. So "even if--as is quite likely--Matthew sees the destruction of Jerusalem as divine punishment on 'this generation' for its persecution of the line of prophets that culminates with Jesus (23.29-36), the idea of definitive rejection does not necessarily follow" (41).
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with this quote. The way Matthew has edited the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in 22:7 implies that Matthew was written after the destruction (compare the version in Luke 14). I see comments like 27:25 more as explanatory and backward looking than forward looking--this is why God allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed in the past. I can accept that it might also have functioned as a polemic against competing Jewish groups of the time (e.g., perhaps the Pharisees about to set up shop at Jamnia).
Against the "complete shift" version #1 above, this version argues that the people are once again distinguished from Israel's leaders after the crucifixion in 27:64. And throughout Matthew, the phrase "all the nations" presumably includes Israel (e.g., 25:32). Cannot the Great Commission be read as an extension of the mission to the nations rather than a shutting of the door to Israel?
3. The Church as the lost sheep of Israel, joined by Gentiles
This is my position and the one to which I believe Donaldson is most sympathetic. In this perspective, "Matthew has an Israel-centered view of the group to which he and his readers belong" (43). The author thus has a "remnant or sectarian outlook." The Gentiles thus join the restored portion of Israel rather than replacing them.
On the one hand, "Matthew seems to have little interest in those aspects of the law that would have differentiated Jew from Gentile (e.g., circumcision, food laws)" (44). On the other, he is quite keen to see Jesus bringing a fulfillment to the OT Scriptures, including its law. Matthew thus argues for the most meaningful kind of continuity between believers and the Israel of the past.
As far as the purpose of the rhetoric, most consider it "social formation." The goal is not so much to vilify others as to create internal group cohesion (kind of like when I go Wesleyan on the blog). Another interesting twist Donaldson mentions is the irony of Christ's blood being upon someone. Why yes, his blood is on us to save us from our sins (1:21)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
