Wow...

[eveglass]

Those friends of mine who have been reading this LJ for a while know that I used to write a blog called Daily Breadcrumbs, in which I systematically read through the Bible and blogged about my reflections. I got as far as 2 Samuel before giving up the endeavor in late 2008, but in the past few months I've picked it up again. No, there aren't any new blog posts, but I've been reading nonetheless. Late last week, I finally finished the Old Testament (hallelujah!) and started in on the New Testament.

Now, I've read some of the New Testament before. I've read the Gospel of Matthew, a few of the Pauline letters (Romans, at the very least), and Revelation. Earlier this week, I reread Matthew, and read the Gospels of Mark and Luke for the first time. It sometimes felt like playing a broken record (I totally understand those people who say there must have been some "Q source" for some of the shared stories), but they were enjoyable reads. I like the parables, though I don't necessarily agree with them. I can see why Christians find these books so compelling.

Today I'm reading the Gospel of John for the first time. I'm almost done (midway through chapter 19), and... wow, just a bit antisemitic, aren't you, John? Also preachy and convoluted. But particularly antisemitic. I feel icky just reading it.

At least next is Acts, where we get back to the fun supernatural-type stories. And (hopefully) less antisemitism.

Comments

[akitrom.livejournal.com]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the "synoptic gospels") are written primarily for prostelization to non-Christian communities or communities very early in their adoption of Christian principles. There are passages in Matthew, in particular, which only makes sense to a Jew who'd been paying attention in the synagogue.

John is writing for a different kind of church, almost a generation after the other gospels, and he's addressing Christian beliefs he doesn't much like. ("A heretic is someone who disagrees with you on a subject neither of you know anything about." Bierce) The relationship between Christian communities and the general Judaic population has changed. And oh yeah, Jews-as-a-whole make convenient villains for John, who might have been more selective in which particular people he wanted to blame.

Of course, he wasn't writing after the Holocaust. He wasn't writing after thousands of years of Christians oppressing Jews. But it is sad to think that John's words were taken as excuse for so much hatred since then.

Whether Holy Scripture is inspired to be free from doctrinal error or not, I can't help but think that the Lord, looking down, watching John write, could be heard by the angels to mutter, "Oh, dear. No..."

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

All excellent points. (And I really like the quote about heretics.)

Incidentally, have you heard of Mr. Deity (http://www.mrdeity.com/)? Irreverent and super-funny.

[ulfhirtha.livejournal.com]

Bart Ehrman's book "Jesus, Interrupted" may be of interest, including a discussion of John's community and a possible genesis of "Jesus as Divine" found there (as well as varying ideas of what was meant by a "Son of God" in the 1st century, what's with this "king of the Jews" charge? etc.) in that community's status as a congregation rejected by their brethern might indeed have bred some payback in the view that unbelievers had indeed missed the theological boat. There's also the fun in trying to pick out what was in the original text & what added by later copyists. That it seems to have been written some 100 years or so after the events gives (to me anyway) a look at how the communities and beliefs were changing from the time of Mark/Matthew.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

I may look into that, thanks.

[auntiegrizelda.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's because it's been a while since I read any part of the Bible on my own, or perhaps it's because of the point of view I was raised with (Irish-Italian Catholic kept largely ignorant of anything remotely unpleasant about said faith in my formative years) but I never picked up on the anti-semitism in John's Gospel. The convoluted and preachy yes, but never the anti-semitism. I suppose that means I should drag out the Bible and read it again.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

Or, on the flip side, it might be that I'm overly-sensitized to things like this, having been raised with a nice, solid Jewish education. It could go both ways.