A few months ago, I wrote an article about some allegedly anti-Semitic elements in the Gospel of Matthew, and I would like to revisit that theme and look at another New Testament book that is also sometimes accused of anti-Semitism: the Gospel of John. I want to do this because John is a much more difficult case than Matthew; in fact, it is unique among all New Testament books in this regard. Most accusations of anti-Semitism are fairly easy to counter. Jesus, the Apostles, and the entire first generation of Christians were all Jewish, so their critique of their fellow Jews was simply a debate within Judaism, not an external critique of Judaism or of all Jews.
However, the Gospel of John is different. While it is still the story of the Jewish Messiah, parts of it do seem to criticize Judaism as a whole. In particular, it often calls Jesus’ opponents “the Jews,” which gives the impression that all Jews, without exception, are its “bad guys.” For example, we read:
And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. (John 5:16)
After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him. (John 7:1)
His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. (John 9:22)
From just a cursory reading of these texts, it is very easy to see why some people think the fourth Gospel is anti-Semitic. “The Jews” are portrayed negatively, and there does not seem to be any indication that John is only talking about some of them. On the surface, this Gospel seems to paint all Jews in Jesus’ day as his opponents, and that definitely looks like anti-Semitism.
Adding Some Nuance
So what can we say about this? Is the Gospel of John really anti-Semitic, or is there more here than meets the eye? The key to solving this difficulty is to look at some other ways that John uses the phrase “the Jews,” and when we do that, we’ll see that the fourth Gospel’s portrayal of them is actually much more nuanced than we would think just from looking at the negative passages. For instance, it does speak about them positively at times:
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22)
Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples.” (John 8:31)
Moreover, there are even passages in which some Jewish people are distinguished from “the Jews,” making this issue much more complex than it seems at first. To take just one example, look back at the last negative passage I quoted above (John 9:22). It says that a certain man’s parents were afraid of “the Jews,” but the man and his parents were themselves Jewish! In this context, “the Jews” refers only to the Pharisees (compare John 9:18-22 with John 9:13-16), who were hostile to Jesus, not to the entire Jewish people.
Solving the Problem
From all this, it is clear that John uses the phrase “the Jews” rather loosely and imprecisely. It is simply a generic name that can refer to pretty much any group of Jewish people in the fourth Gospel. Sometimes it refers to the entire Jewish nation, and other times it refers only to some Jews. Consequently, to really understand what it means, we have to look at each individual use of it and see what it means each time. We cannot generalize or make sweeping claims about John’s attitude towards “the Jews.”
However, we can make one really important point: because the fourth Gospel sometimes speaks positively of “the Jews,” its negative uses of the phrase cannot mean that all Jews are bad. Rather, those negative passages must refer only to some of them (in particular, the ones that disbelieved Jesus and were hostile towards him), and when we look at how the phrase is used throughout John’s Gospel, we find confirmation of that. John never uses it to mean that the entire Jewish nation is bad, nor does it ever portray anyone as bad simply by virtue of being Jewish. Instead, whenever “the Jews” indisputably refers to the people as a whole, it is always either positive or neutral.
And with that, we have our answer to the accusation of anti-Semitism in the Gospel of John: it is simply a result of lazy reading. The fourth Gospel contains some imprecise and unfortunate wording, but that is a far cry from real anti-Semitism. Once we understand how John uses the phrase “the Jews,” we realize that the “bad guys” in this Gospel are the Jews who were hostile to Jesus, not the people as a whole, and that makes all the difference.
9 thoughts on “Is the Gospel of John Anti-Semitic?”
I am not a linguist but I have, by education and avocation, some competence in history. This is why the reading of the Gospel at mass from recent translations is often like fingernails on a blackboard. The epistles of Paul are much less so, probably because the original language was Greek or Latin. I look forward to the day when an accurate translation of the bible, with suitably explanatory and complete footnoting, is available.
There is nothing “imprecise or unfortunate” about St John’s original Greek (and possibly previously Aramaic) “wording”. Only a poor translation into modern English, where “Jews” invariably means the whole people of Israel and their descendants, minus Christians, in the supposedly ‘negative” passages. St John plainly means “the religious authorities in Jerusalem” or at least the most powerful faction if them. Writing obviously as a Jewish Galilean.
I agree, John likely dictated in Aramaic. I’m guessing he was among the 80 – 90% illiterate. He was also advanced in age, so likely knew the basics. The Greek is Ἰουδαίοις, which pertains to Jewish, Judah, or Jews. It is the same word used in Matthew 2:2. …I’m no expert in linguistics…(I’ve studied 6 languages)…(none of which are Greek)…Paul says he is from the tribe of Benjamin, and Zechariah from the tribe of Levi, so I agree he was referring to all Israel in general…minus the Christians.
Christopher, no, I’m saying that St John plainly was NOT referring to Israel in general. That is a modern misunderstanding based on a poor translation.
St John was almost certainly literate. The Jews of 1st century AD placed an enormous emphasis on teaching their children to read. They probably had the highest literacy rate of any country anywhere in the world until the invention of the printing press 1300 years later. St John expresses many complex and rich theological truths. Even before he became an Apostle, he tells us that he was known to the high priest and had sufficient influence to be able to persuade the guards to let himself and St Peter into the high priest’s palace after Christ’s arrest. Obviously even then he was much more than just a Galilean fisherman.
I think Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were the ticket into the palace for Peter and John.
OK, even if John had some literacy, I don’t believe Zebedee was often buying scrolls of scripture which likely cost around $10,000. Even after the printing press, only institutions could afford those books! How much more would be a hand written scroll? Don’t forget the limited supply would still demand top dollar on a free market by highly educated professionals.
27% of the Bible is poetry for a reason. The psalms were sung at the Temple, therefore the words became easier to remember.
I still think John uses the word Jew to refer to all Israel. He knew all of Israel was waiting for the Messiah to ransom the captives:
Nathan tells David, “Moreover, the LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you: when your days have been completed and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, sprung from your loins, and I will establish his kingdom. He it is who shall build a house for my name, and I will establish his royal throne forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.” 2 Samuel 7:11-14
It wasn’t the first time all of Israel rejected the Lord’s Kingship:
“The Lord said: Listen to whatever the people say. You are not the one they are rejecting. They are rejecting me as their king.” 1 Samuel 8:7.
Yet all 4 Gospels mention that above him there was an inscription that read, “This is the King of the Jews.” The Greek word used is Ἰουδαίων. Paul describes himself as an Israelite using the word Ἰσραηλίτης (Romans 11:1).
John’s single use of the word for Israelite was Ἰσραηλίτης. “”Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him.”
“Likewise the chief priests, with the scribes, mocked him among themselves and said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe.”” Mark 15:31-32
“the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that he said, ‘I am the King of the Jews.’”” John 19:21. Therefore, the chief priests were offended by the use of the word Ἰουδαίων (not Ἰσραηλίτης) – offended enough to take action.
Well, thank goodness we got that cleared up.
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
The Gospel of John was written at a time of increasing antipathy between Christians and the Jewish community of which they were originally a part. Finally around the year 100 C.E. Christians were kicked out of the synagogues. There has been some debate among Jews as to whether this action was too harsh.
Also, the Gospel of John was written roughly 60 years after the Resurrection – likely in Ephesus (west coast of Turkey). The Gentile population certainly outnumbered those from Israel. John was a fisherman. John was the son of a fisherman, yet the Gospel was written in Greek. My guess is the message was directed mainly to the Gentiles, but not to tear down the Jews, but to draw attention to its difficulties.
Jesus says “they” heard my words and saw my deeds, yet “”they” still hated me without cause”.
This is true today for us! We hear the message of His words and deeds, but do we change our behavior?