Is The Gospel of John Anti-Semitic?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
The Gospel of John is one of the most puzzling books of the New Testament, especially when it comes to understanding its view of Jews and Judaism. On one hand, Jesus is clearly described as a Jew who understands and teaches the law of Moses and who keeps Jewish customs and festivals. On the other hand, the Gospel condemns Jews, makes them guilty for the execution of Jesus, and even declares that their "father" is not Abraham, let alone God, but the Devil. How can one book so fully embrace Judaism and yet condemn it. And importantly, is this kind of vitriolic opposition to Jews and Judaism appropriately called "anti-semitism"? The answer will surprise many listeners.
In this episode, Bart addresses:
-How to define our terms - what do we mean by “anti-semitic”, and how does it relate to “anti-Judaism”?
-When we consider how the Jewish people are treated and depicted in the gospels, there are three different groups to consider; the Jewish authorities, the people they governed, and Jesus and his followers. Do these seem like reasonable distinctions?
-The Gospel of John doesn’t treat the first two groups kindly. Throughout the Gospel, the Jewish authorities are depicted as constantly trying to catch Jesus breaking the Mosaic law - are they just looking for any excuse to justify their attacks on him?
-Does John's gospel differentiate between the Jewish people and the Jewish *authorities*?
-John shows the Jewish people as being against both God and Jesus, for example in chapter 8:31-59, which is a conversation between Jesus and a group of unidentified Jewish people in the Temple, in which he calls them the children of the Devil. What should we make of this passage?
-Are there exceptions to John’s apparent anti-semitism?
-How did apocalyptic thinking feed into the response of John’s community after they were kicked out of the synagogue?
Do love when Megan interviews Bart. She asks pertinent questions and moves the conversation well.
She's also upsettingly sexy!!
That John writes "the jews" shows in my view that John is writing at a time when Christians already saw themselves as a religion apart and definitely different to jews. An apostle wouldn't have expressed himself like this, because he would have seen himself as jew.
Great point
Excellent post. From the video, it appears we might not know exactly what he meant.
He might have been talking about jewish people that had no attachments to Jesus, versus his group of jewish people that did have attachments to jesus.
That’s the assumption, but maybe John’s thinking evolved.
But they were ethnic Jews. So did they view fellow Jews as traitors? I really don’t get the anti semitism in the Bible (if you interpret it that way).
John 8-44, kjv,Jesus himself describes the jews,before they killed him
It's just INCREDIBLE to me how simply he can answer such complex questions, it's such a fantastic thing we have that he explains such niche and complex topics in a way non scholars can understand
1:35 … For ten seasons my wife and I have been going to Israel each June as staff members on an archaeological dig with a colleague of Dr. Erhman’s, Jodi Magness. The logistics of international travel are compounded for us because in addition to our own luggage (the usual large checked bags and carry-ones) we also bring supplies needed by the other specialists and items that are difficult to get in Israel meaning we juggle at least two additional full size bags (often overweight) into a car to and through the various airports and cram them all into a usually modest size rental car in Israel 😵💫 This June is the last season of the Huqoq Excavation Project and though bittersweet we we look at each other and the amount of luggage and say “we might be getting too old for this!” 🤣
And now back to the regularly scheduled program…
I was once serving a Disciples of Christ church in eastern NC, and a teen from a more conservative independent "Christian church" came looking for trouble to one of my youth group meetings, and when I mentioned "Jesus and the other Jews of his time," he objected that "Jesus was not a Jew."
I found that surprising and said so, but nothing I said about Jesus definitely being Jewish seemed convincing to him.
So I went home and began searching through all the gospels to try to find a place where Jesus came right out and said "I am a Jew," for I knew that nothing less than that would suffice for that teen. To my horror, I found no explicit statement like that in Mark, Matthew, or Luke, and so I turned at last to the Gospel of John with a sinking heart because I knew that in that gospel Jesus and his disciples are often described as if they are not themselves "the Jews." I also knew of the horrible place where Jesus REPUTEDLY described some of his Jewish opponents as "children of your father the devil"! And so I was much relieved when I quickly came to the fourth chapter of John wherein Jesus clearly identifies himself as a Jew to the Samaritan woman at the well.
I passed that scripture reference on to the teen, who reluctantly admitted that Jesus was a Jew. (I later learned that a Ku Klux Klan advocate had earlier come through that area spreading the claim that Jesus was not a Jew.)
What? In my church it's just common knowledge. Of course he was a Jew. That's why he was called King of the Jews and believed to be a descendant of King David through Mary, a Jew. You know cause, in Christian tradition Joseph is the step-father.
He went to the synagogue and was circumcised. A big part of Stephen's speech-- the first martyr-- was that the Jewish people had killed Jesus, a prophet sent by God, and maybe more than that, just as their fathers (ancestors) had killed many of the other prophets.
@@ivetterodríguez-j4k Well, non of those arguments would cut it with that young man. It took Jesus actually saying it.
Changing the subject just a bit, I was once in a discussion group with Unitarians where someone said, "Did the Jews kill Jesus?" I said, "When you say that, which Jews do you mean? The common people? The Pharisees, the Sadducees? The Zealots? The Sicarii? The higher priests? The general priests? The Galileans,? The Judeans? Those in Perea or Trachonitis?Those living in Egypt, where there were more Jews in Alexandria than in Jerusalem? The multitudes of Jews in Babylonia or Assyria? Or in Asia Minor, or Italy, or Gaul? Which Jews do you mean?
Everyone's eyes glazed over.
___________
By the way, neither of the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke traces Jesus' ancestry to David through Mary. Both trace him through Joseph, although they do not agree even as to the names of Jesus' paternal grandfather, great grandfather, great great grandfather, etc. etc.
But it is true that anyone born of a Jewish mother was considered Jewish.
@@jamesboswellii2034 @@jamesboswellii2034 @@jamesboswellii2034 I wasn't saying the all the Jews or some Jews killed Jesus. I don't care either way. I was just pointing out that a prominent figure in Christianity, Stephen the first martyr-- which is to say it's in Christian teachings not that I wholeheartedly believe it-- as the narrative goes told a presumably Jewish mob that just as their fathers had killed the prophets they had killed Jesus.
But yeah, I got the genealogies part wrong but point is even the bible makes it clear that Jesus was rejected by his own people which despite having doubts that some Jews got Jesus killed, as an ex-Baptist I couldn't ever feel upset about it if they or Pilate did as we tend to hold a sense of individuality when it comes to accepting Christ and the Christian faith that probably stems from how our baptisms are supposed to be a public profession of our faith and personal decision. If you accept Jesus you accept him in sincerity and not for reputation, family, friends, to save face. So, coming across a Jew whose ancestors may or may not have killed someone who used to be my Savior I wouldn't take that personally even then.
Lying to yourself and everyone around you no matter what kind of Christian you are is the most hypocritical thing you can do, and is probably the most disheartening thing I keep from my parents. I prefer honesty and true devotion and if a Jew anywhere ever takes issue to Christianity I don't hold it against them. Not when I was Christian and not now. I know that if I went back a few millennia, centuries, decades, or even now certainly there would be direct family and extended family who have done despicable things and even if it turns out some Jews did say, "his blood be upon us and our children" I don't hold it against their children. Not when I was a Christian and not now. And I don't think I'm an outlier for believing that. And just about everything I said about accepting Jesus as Christ being a personal decision is probably applicable to most protestant denominations in the US. You can't easily have a personal relationship with God in the Catholic church in medieval Europe looming over your every decision.
If anything we, they, Christians generally don't like Calvinists because they believe in predestination. Christians who proselytize and evangelize generally don't like predestination. And my Baptist church absolutely does believe in spreading the faith and the good news but as with many protestants we do believe your faith is a personal decision and that blatantly contradicts predestination beliefs.
Granted that personal decision and individuality gets more complex if your born into the faith like I was and the nice sweet old lady and my parents think at age 9 I will not only understand the Jesus-died-for-the-sins-of-humanity story but will of course believe it. Why wouldn't I? It took her repeating the story to me twice, as if I was just a dumb kid who wasn't listening, for me to realize my mistake. I was meant to say and expected to say "yes, I believe" and not "I'm not sure, maybe". So I said yes eventually to not worry my parents or the lady and because it was just getting awkward. I even considered getting re-baptized 3 years later at 12 because that's when I actually started to believe in it for myself but I only wanted it to be between me and God and didn't like the idea of it being public. I'm too much of a recluse. I didn't want people asking me why I got rebaptized or congratulating me. So I never did get rebaptized which ironically doesn't matter in Baptist churches. It's your decision, it's your profession of faith and despite it being an accepted ritual in Baptist churches, you do it for yourself and not for family, friends, church, and never for the salvation of the soul. It is solely a public display and profession of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior but never a part of salvation.
Therefore no one will zealously care if you chose not to do it. Not even the pastor's wife even cared. Though that may not be too surprising either since she grew up Presbyterian and they know they believe what they believe just as much as any devout Christian does, even though they don't absolutely refuse baby baptism like my Baptist church does.
Anyway. I realized I might have lost you. My point is that in my denomination-- we don't like that term because it sounds impersonal-- we couldn't firmly hold a disbelief in Jesus being the messiah very personally. Even if they were Jewish. We hold sincerity up pretty high. It rivals even integrity, so even if we may believe someone not believing is in the wrong their sincere disbelief is respected as belief must be sincere. I don't see how a religion that portrays itself as compassionate and sympathetic could ever think integrity overrides it or even wrestles with it.
@@ivetterodríguez-j4k Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. Given these three propositions:
1. All Jews are awful [which is a vile belief, but that doesn't stop some people from believing it]
2. Jesus was perfect
3. Jesus was a Jew
Well, something's got to give. And if one is not willing to let go of either (1) or (2), it's got to be (3) that gives -- even if disbelieving (3) is ludicrous on the face of it.
Thank you for finding a way to put at least a small chink in that young man's armor. We can hope you caught him young enough...
I'm glad Ehrman makes the distinction between historic anti-Judaism, aimed at the religion, and antisemitism as a racialized transformation of this, which emerges in the 19th century (ironically with the increasing integration and assimilation of Jews). Both are bad but it's an important analytical distinction.
I am not convinced. It seems a distinction without a difference. In the nineteenth century the hatred and persecution of the Jews was given a more philosophical and (pseudo) scientific explanation/justification but the phenomenon was basically the same.
Jews were considered responsible for the death of Jesus as descendants of the Jews of Jerusalem: the problem was their specific bloodline, not just a different religion. The conversos (Jews converted to Catholicism in 1400s 1500s Spain and Portugal) were still treated as second class citizens and often persecuted even after the conversion.
Indeed, yes. There may have been religiously-based antisemitism but it was a somewhat different and perhaps even a better kind. Although the pogroms following passion plays, the blood libel, the expulsions were quite awful in the Middle Ages.
Not sure if the expulsion of the Jews from England was for which type of your anti-semitism? Oh wait it was for land and money and they used Matthews antisemitism as an excuse. Now let’s look at all of those towns where Jews were exterminated so their money could fund the crusades…So many events to categorize.
What? Have you read what Martin Luther had to say about them in the 16th century?
Jewish remains were recently found in Norwich well. They were medieval pogrom victims. Thrown down a well for Jesus.
Glad i got this channel in my recommendations, im not religious but ive been trying to learn more about the abrahamic religions because of curiosity and historical importance. These videos are great for me as they dont seem spiritually influenced, but purely the facts we have. Thank you
Barts as loaded with agenda as any believer, i'm somewhat read in the field and find he presents one position, and is overly dismissive of a scholarly conservative position, he presents a liberal critical position well, but its one positions and as biased as the conservative one.
Always enlightening and love the chemistry between Bart and Megan. Thanks!
I'm a Canadian lapsed Catholic in the organ transplant business, so of course Jésus de Montréal is my favourite Jesus film, too! Enjoying your podcast and channel. Thank you.
Jesus of Montreal is one of my favorite movies. I remember watching it when it came out.
It is a most wonderful movie: the acting, script , with story a tad dated. I have watch it many a time. Love it.
I like the great Antonio an I heard that he was Jesus incarnate an use to live there in Montreal can you shed some light into this mystery.
"Let's do it New York style: 'Behold the fucking lamb.'"
🤣
I just saw Jesus of Montreal for the first time today. The scene where Daniel overthrew the tables first made me laugh and cheer, then I watched the scene again and it made me cry. Such a good movie!
I've always had trouble believing John could possibly be written by a single author.
You notice that when reading it too? Man! I thought I was the only one
*United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Gospel of John:*
"Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. *Jn 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.* The prologue (Jn 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (Jn 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.
*Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form* are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (Jn 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (Jn 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament."
*"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
There are 2 Johns. In fact we do not know who wrote John Gospel. Somebody wrote a part and somebody else added to this part. We do not know the authors. It is a collective name John. As many other.
Excellent observation. The gospel of John is not univocal. It tries to be but it isn't.
That would explain the discrepancies cited by Bart here--another person picking up the story mid-stream and not making sure all the details mesh.
Perhaps John's gospel was written with a proto-gnostic slant. Perhaps the author thinks that the God of Abraham is not Jesus's God but the Demiurge.
What happened to the video I started watching on Tuesday with the same title? I went back to it yesterday (Wednesday) to find it had been pulled. It had a different scholar being interviewed by Bart.
The pulled video appeared to be the wrong one as it was on a different topic related to John.
It appeared to be the wrong video for the title, and this is the right video for the title.
Agreed that it was a different topic in relation to John but it seems strange that it wasn’t presented again with an appropriate title.
I was mid-watching the old one when it was pulled. It seemed interesting. I'd like to finish it before I forget the first half of it.
@@brianmulholland2467 I'd bet they are going to release it again. My guess is they have taped a bunch of episodes in advance for weeks when it won't be convenient to tape a new episode. A lot of channels keep evergreen content on hand for that purpose.
The Seventh Day Adventists teach that the passage in Luke where Jesus says, “Verily, verily I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise”, is punctuated incorrectly. They teach what Jesus actually said was, “Verily, verily I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.” Where you place the comma determines the meaning of the passage. I would like to hear Dr. Erhman’s thoughts on this in a future Ask Bart section.
Jesus may have said that but he was being sarcastic, as in, who tf could ever believe this.
@@crede9427 Luke said Jesus said that and with no comma.
Thank you. Very interesting, the distinction between Jewish ethnicity and Jewish culture/religion.
Fabulous lecture clarifying some deeply problematic passage in this gospel. I've also wondered if this author was trying to court favor with Roman authorities by placing the blame for the judicial execution of Jesus on Jewish authorities. If John dates from the 90s, then the Christian community would have experienced a couple of periods of persecution by that point. Might the author have been trying to make nice with the Romans by blaming Jesus' execution on Jews?
@@notanemoprog No idea what mastodon even is - or what your point might be.
Absolutely the Gospels are a testimony that convicts the High Priest and Sanhedrin of murdering a member of God's beloved Davidic royal family. In Acts Peter sends the congregation out and away from Jerusalem while the Apostles deliberately provoked the zealots into violence against Roman occupation with the forethought intent that Rome retaliate by destroying Herod's Temple.
I have always wondered why the Jews were so reviled for killing the Christian Savior (letting alone the political ramifications), as, whoever is responsible for this act is fulfilling God's plan of the Sacrifice. Jesus was born to die humiliated as a sacrifice to atone for all people's sins (let it be known I am not a Christian, so this isn't a sermon). Shouldn't those facilitating God's will be celebrated rather than vilified?
I don’t know how Megan manages to remain a Christian despite knowing all these things
It’s called being a secular Christian. We like the culture, she loves the stories & we like Jesus & Paul’s teachings. We don’t have believe all of it like how a secular Jew doesn’t believe in all of it, it’s culture.
I think I heard about the movie Bart recommended, but not sure I watched it. It sounds like it's based on or at least has the same premise as the book of Nikos Kazantzakis, The Greek Passion (or Christ Recrucified - depending on the translation). One of the most influential books on my life that I read in my early 20s.
It might be something that is taken as a given, but I assume that whoever is writing John is not Jewish. That's concerning if you believe it was written by one of Jesus' closest disciples.
wow I didn't realize the old video was a completely different topic 😅
Thank you. Bart's definition between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism was helpful. I have often said that John was anti-Semitic. The distinction is important.
I wish I could have watched this in real time and asked a question. Did a Jew write the Gospel of John? I believe that Phillip Schaff's church history refers to Eusebius as saying that a bishop from Ephesus wrote the Gospel of John. If a gentile wrote John, that seems to make more sense as to the repeated references to "the Jews."
It's long been the tradition/history that John was an overseer ('bishop' is a more modern word) at Ephesus,and lived there, along with Mary, the mother of Jesus, in his later years. Close to Ephesus (just behind the hill above the amphitheatre) there's a house where he is supposed to have lived, and Mary is supposed to have lived there as well. Both are honoured with murals and local folklore. It's also long been the tradition that John, the Jewish apostle, was the author of the Gospel attributed to him. I have read John many time sand have never understood "the Jews" to mean the people as a whole. I just don't see it as a phrase that is anti-Jewish.
@@pdyt2009 The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th
@@termination9353 The religion was hijacked by Rome? Or was Rome hijacked by the religion?
They gave the gospels a "Gnosticism" cover-story? Seems like the opposite is true, if you study the early church.
@Therion Termi is an either an idiot or a troll that keeps posting this nonsense on almost every video.
He seems to think he knows more than actual scholars.
@@therion5458 The Gospel was scrambled up. Here is some evidence. Does the hijackee scramble it's own doctrine or does the hijacker scramble the doctrine? EVIDENCE GOSPEL NARRATIVE SCRAMBLED
The narraitve says first miracles Jesus turns water into wine, John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus
Second miracle Jesus cures centurian's son, John 4:54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did
So how can it say in between the first and second miracles that Jesus also performed miracles in Jerusalem? John 2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the MIRACLES which he did.
" if you study the early church." The only reliable source for the 'early church' is the Book of Acts. (Acts shows Paul was a Roman agent provocateur whom the Apostles did not believe his conversion story. All epistles are counterfeits of the Catholic church.) From where do I learn your church history? From their own REVISIONIST history written to serve themselves up in the best light? I'm outright calling your Church and their historians outright fraud liars deceivers. What am I going to study their promotional materials for? Ask the accused to investigate themselves, pack the jury with THEIR fellow liars, and expect I'm going to get an honest adjudication? I have the Gospels THEY canonized. Why does THAT Gospel say Lazarus is the disciple whom Jesus loved while this Church says it's John?
The hypothesis that John is a heavily redacted Gnostic text makes a lot of this make sense, especially the “descendants of Abraham but your father is the devil” passage
Semitic refers to a group of languages stemming from the same source. Arabic is a Semitic language. The two written languages of Africa Egyptian, and of Northern Sudan are Semetic. Being that Arabia's western coastline is so close to the African eastern coastline, the language migrated over to the Sudan. Egypt is a part of the "Fertile Crescent" the people of ancient Canaan, Sumeria, etc. had migrated into Egypt thousands of years ago. Today, it is Muslim where they speak Arabic. So, anyone who speaks some type of Semitic tongue, essentially is Semitic. So, "anti-Semitic" is the wrong terminology when we are speaking about anti-Judaism or, anti-Hebrew - which would be the correct issue which is in discussion here.
It is however what the terminology is. It's what anti-semitic means. It's what it was coined to mean and it's how it's always been used, even if it's not what it seems like a breakdown of the parts should mean.
Does Bart think that Jesus went to India please
I'm hooked on this. Can't get enough.
After watching the video with Hugo Mendez and explaining how the “Johannine” community was probably an extension of the Essenes i would say that “John” is decidedly not anti-semitic or anti-judaism. The Gospel begins with a jewish midrash of Genesis 1-5ish. Marcion’s canon only had “Luke,” probably because “John” was too jewish. This makes the conclusion that the “jews” of “John” represent the jerusalem temple establishment the most reasonable one.
I could imagine Josh just in the national park and is like, well time to make my own books now.
Thank you ♥️
This is the last video I had left to watch on this series 😢 Best podcast ever! Thank you a lot
I don't understand the meaning of anti Semitic and it's connection to Jews only‼️
I am ASSYRIAN, and we are considered Semitic ,Arab are considered Semitic also
Why it's ONLY used for Jews ????
The term anti-semitism was coined by someone who hated Jews to be a more scientific sounding replacement for the term Judenhass (Jew hatred) and was never intended in this context to include all semitic peoples.
It's a convention, and conventions are not always perfect. Language is imperfect. In normal parlance, anti-Semitic refers to the Jews. It's not a geo-political war statement. On top of this, language will never be perfect, and people will be killing each other over words, forever. Did you actually listen to the video? I take it you did not?
Because they want to be special and separatists. The NT isn't anti Semitic, but anti judean elite.
Because your people don't hold the reigns of power.
You know this well. Anti semitic isa slur used to silence opposition and nothing more.
Good point - I had never thought of that
I am definitely not antisemetic and may even have jewish blood in my past (kohanim marker). I do find many evangelicals have a terrible attitude towards judaism and there perverted view of armageddon. I could at times be called antizionist, as I am a definite supporter of the palestinian people and want the best for them. it is sad that you get labeled antisemetic for wanting peace in israel.
John 4:22“Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.”
I had this question
Why the very previous video before this was deleted? I was watching the half through, and it just disappeared.
I was wondering the same thing.
And more importantly, was the death of Jesus a sacrifice ?
Compare it with the detailed specifications in Leviticus.
Was he cut up and burned on an altar by priests ?
Having taken your suggestion, I watched JESUS OF MONTREAL (free on TH-cam) and came away with many questions. Perhaps you could address some of them in a future podcast.
After the crucifixion, the players describe Jesus as returning from the dead 5 or 10 years later, having to convince his followers that he was who he claimed to be. The movie doesn’t explain this assertion. Where does that come from?
In the movie’s passion play, they introduce Jesus as Yashu Ben Panthera. While I was familiar with the rumor that Jesus was fathered by a Roman soldier, I was unfamiliar with this name. A quick bit of research unearthed the Toledot Yeshu, which I was unfamiliar with. Could you explain it and the controversy surrounding it? Particularly on its effect toward antisemitism?
In the Toledot Yeshu, they speak of Jesus “stealing” the name of the creator and using it to perform miracles. Would you explain that to me and your listeners?
Thanks! Love the show! I read Misquoting Jesus when it was first published and (mis)quoted it many times.
Skip to 3:15 to get to the start of the topic.
Does the beautiful message of love proclaimed by Jesus Christ still guide his followers to the path of harmony & safety? If so, why did millions of Evangelical Christians in 2016 & 2020 allow a wolf to become shepherd of the flock & to surrender the fate of American people to the mercy of the malicious?
Dr. Ehrman, are you going to be in Quito sometime next week? I am a Big fan and would LOVE to meet you and show you around!!!
I kept running with the idea that the four books of the Gospel are just four different perspectives of the exact same sequence of events, with certain things only seen from the perspective of each author individually, but that's just my personal opinion.
So if we keep chipping away at this, then eventually, we can finally usher in that ideal future without Christianity that we've been constantly wishing for?
I often wonder why it is so seldom brought up that possibly the greatest anti-Semite in western history was Martin Luther. Of course since he was Biblical literalist, he got that interpretation straight from the gospels. I think parts of Matthew give John a run for his money on that though. That's why I think it's true that Matthew was written first in Hebrew but only comes down to us in a Greek translation. I think there was more involved than just translation.
@@notanemoprog He was the very first Nazi and was used by them in their propaganda campaigns in Germany. Though I agree that the concept of "races" is a late invention.
Von den Jüden und iren Lügen (1543) On the Jews and Their Lies) might be a clue how martin Luther felt on the subject. But to be fair; he didn't like women, gypsies, Muslims, negros; just about anyone.
@@russellmiles2861 That makes him a very typical Christian, no?
@@notanemoprog are you saying they weren't targeted during the Black Death or the Inquisition? For not just religious reasons.
@@ji8044 I thought it bemusing that Professor Ehrman asserted that John is not "anti-sematic" but against Jews who reject Jesus. I would even say that was sophistry. If attacking Jews because they aren't Christian isn't antisemitic! Anyway, that is the entire point of Christianity; servility to Greko/roman culture and that the Jews who rebel against such are the enemy. This is just a Christian thing until post war revision to incorporate humanism by acknowledge Jews could saved too. This sticker is that if some folk who reject Jesus can be saved - with no theological criteria as to why? Then who else can access the non-Saviour clause. Have we all gone Full-Universalism.
I never heard an anti-semitic word or anti-any-group in middle America, unless we count Polish jokes, which I no longer hear and which seemed harmless at the time.
Scholars of Christianity never ever do one thing, and that is to deny the "historicity" of Jesus. Whereas the unquestionable truth is that there never ever was a living, breathing, walking talking Jesus. There wasn't even a town called Nazareth. Whoever wrote the Gospels blaming the Jews for the death of a non existent Jesus knew very well they were creating a vicious myth that would cause hatred against the Jews by Christians for all time.
I have to congratulate you for the calmness when you interview people. You don t have this American debate style where everyone is yelling thinking that this way sells better. You must have worked with yourself a lot.
This is how regular americans discuss things. Unfortunately, the loud mouths get more tv time and tv is an exported product so the rest of the world gets that view
An excellent video here on TH-cam, that I STRONGLY recommend watching for more clarity on the issue, is from JEWS FOR JUDAISM entitled, "Christian Jew Hatred, Anti-Semitism Or Anti-Judaism." Rabbi Michael Skobak does an excellent job presenting the historical facts, including the rabid anti-Semitism of the Church Fathers.
Your music at the start NA !! Well to each to your own , just my opinion ! And the start of the show , can’t you talk about your personal stuff before the show O well again just my opinion ! Anyway love the topics of the show and how you guys deliver it ❤
*GO OFF JOHN!* the man's a boss. _JC
Great chat.
How can you read the New Testament and hate the Jews?
I’m confused.
It's STRIKING how the Jesus of the Gospel of John DOESN'T SEEM JEWISH. He RAILS & RANTS against them. It's the MOST ANNOYING Gospel of the Bible for me.
Jesus of Montreal is one of the best religious films ever.
Should John be read in the context of Greek Christian communities in conflict with Greek Jewish diaspora? What is known from outside the Bible about their interactions in the late first century both in Rome and in places like Ephesus?
Well met!
Many people in my country also want to view rama and krishna and their stories to be our history just like freaking fundamentalists in christainity and islam. Like how can we say that historically buddha and mahavira existed ,muhammad and also jesus maybe but the evidence from contemporary non biased sources is not high for ram, krishna and Moses but jesus is the most least likely if we have to compare between buddha mahaveera and jesus and the evidemce we have for them but because early christianity began very slowly and christ life is not some major event for their time and there were many who were claiming themselves to be the messiah who didnt become famous like jesus did becoz of likes of Paul and their audacious missionary activities.
It makes for a much better interview when Megan concentrates on Bart's answers rather than typing and looking/focussing elsewhere throughout. Everyone else here is keen to learn, so good that she is trying to do that now too. Thanks
Wow, that's very condescending and disrespectful to the work of a woman that is making such an awesome content available to you for free. Megan is clearly always invested in the interview and interested in what Bart is explaining. When she types, she's obviously taking notes about what Bart is saying to best conduct the interview and make related questions afterwards. Her job is not just to look pretty and interested, she's an interviewer and hostess.
Can't wait for the next topic, Paul, the founder of Paulism.
The historian Josephus also tells us about the Pharisees having the support of the masses. And the Pharisees and/or Rabbis rejected Jesus as the Messiah, therefore all of their followers, which was the majority of the Jews, also rejected Him (see Matthew 27:20), and not because of what Professor Bart said: "Jesus claims to be the Messiah convincing." Moreover, the ones that believed Jesus as God were the Gentiles, and not the Jews as Bart said. There were no Jews who said that Jesus was the only way of salvation, but the author of John, and who as Bart says was not John the Apostle. Furthermore, the Gospel of John was probably written by a Gentile, and not by a Jew, because how can a Jew be anti-Semitic?
The lord's Pray did it come directly from Jesus or did John the Baptist teach it to him
Where is the video gone that was uploaded originally with this title by mistake? Please and thank you
Great job on this podcast you both!
The use of ‘Judaioi’ (Judeans/Jews) has a strong irony meaning as ‘Revelation’ has described some opponents as those who “Say they are Jews but are not” I.e. are not true Israelites because they are deceitful and contrary to God’s will and values.
No one tried to stamp them out? Doesn’t the books of Esther and Maccabees suggest otherwise (note that stamp out need not be genocide although that is the case in the former)
I always ask christians"Why don't you go to the Synagogue like Jesus did?🤔 Jesus never went to Church 😳
As opposed to the rest of the Gospels which are only mildly antisemitic?
Correct. The synoptic gospels talk about the Jews in terms of the Sanhedrin, their leaders etc, whereas the gospel of John just says Jews. This is due to an evolving split between the early Christians and Jews.
It would have been very helpful for either Megan or Bart to clarify that most of those in John's community are thought to have been, themselves, Jewish Christians. There may have been some gentiles as well, but according to scholars I have read, most were Jewish Christians.
You pretend not to be aware of the fact that sémitism is not equal Jewish races but it refers to a race of middle west that includes all Arabic arameens and Hebrew. Most nowadays Jewish people are not Semitic. This is a Semitic like calling Americans “Indians”
Amazed that Ecclesiastes 7 is in the Bible.
Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 refer to Jews who say they are, but are not. Are they the children of the devil that Jesus referred to in the Gospels?????
Is Christian religion not conceived as universal, ecumenical, and thereby opposed to ethnic Judaism?
Beginning at 3:15. Say thank you.
Thx 👍
Why were the doctrines in John attributed to Jesus?
👏🙂
Great video
P.s Can anyone tell me why the previous video was removed
@@Fran-ho7qu thx
Christian Scientists may cite the Gospel of John more than any other Christian sect.
I can just imagine the Pagans of those days covering their pants with both hands saying you want to circum-WHAT? 😮😢
Antisemitism should be written as one word with no dash and no capital.
There was, however, tension and violence between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria and other Levantine cities.
Wasn't that allowed 2,000 years ago? I thought hating your enemy was OK in biblical times.
If Jesus' supporters were also blamed for 'seeking to kill him', then doesn't that imply that they share a collective guilt with other Jews regardless of their belief in him, aka anti-semitism instead of anti-judaism?
Calling any book which was written 2000 years ago "anti-Semitic" is vacuous grandiloquence. The term was defined in the mid 1800's. The term has a narrow scope definition, Which seems to change as time goes by. You can easily imagine that people who lived 1800 years prior could not have foreseen their actions as anti-Semitic. I hope that our actions today will not be judged by the Sense and Sensibility of people who will live 2000 years from now.
@slay2525 Thank you for the insult. You had a million better ways to close your argument but you elected to take this path. If anything, it puts on full display the dearth of your character and the weakness of your argument. Obviously you missed the gist of my argument, but I'm not at all surprised. The deeper you shove your head up you @ss, the longer you keep it there, the less likely you'll be able to find your way out.
To avoid a childish comeback, this was not learned by experience. You may argue that the gospel of John might have had some of the earlier building blocks of anti-Semitism, but in itself is not anti-Semitic.
when will we be able to view Cuneiform with Megan? that would be great!
I'd watch "Cuneiform with Megan," if you decide to do that sometime.
What group were the gentiles grafted into if not the Jewish chosen people of god? Its evident that people will be people! All religions prove this!
Yes, Jesus of Montreal is a great film.
great again!!!
Please explain to me how John 8:44 is not antisemitic.
I disagree on apocalyptic views and ‘John’, the author is capable of believing apocalyptic yet focusing in this one book on issues in the conflict iand benefits of the here and now in a time of crisis for the congregations of the Province of Asia.
Another great topic. 🙂
It's right in John that Pontius Pilate becomes completely innocent of Jesus's condemnation. The jews "get to do dirty job". I would say that antisemitism began right there in the gospels which much later were even used to "legalize" massive tortures as we know It.
lol. lmao even.
Can you reference the passage please? No paraphrase, no explanation, just the facts. 'll read it for myself.Thanks.
Absolutely the Gospels are a testimony that convicts the High Priest and Sanhedrin of murdering a member of God's beloved Davidic royal family. In Acts Peter sends the congregation out and away from Jerusalem while the Apostles deliberately provoked the zealots into violence against Roman occupation with the forethought intent that Rome retaliate by destroying Herod's Temple.
@@pdyt2009you cant find the trial scene in John? - jeez
The Samaritan woman calls Jesus a Ioudaios. The later term Jew does not appear in the vernacular until much later. Paul calls the 'people of God' in the diaspora as Israelites or Hebrews.
Link to Cuneiform With Megan please
In the 1st AD the Jews who followed Yeshua didn’t believe he was God. This must have come later
They did believe he was God in flesh, only the Ebionits didnt believe it.
This is important stuff.
Could the Gospel of John be framed as a gnostic text?
I agree with the distinction of anti semitism and judeophobia. Christianity has a long history of Judeophobia. But not anymore 😆😉
This Movie Bart speaks of is on TH-cam. Jesus De Montréal is a great story.
Yes...everything is antisemitic...Don't cha know? Now we can move on and have critical conversations without labels....
I mean... I'd totally watch a podcast called, "Cuneiform with Megan"
I love Megan's voice btw! 😁
Bart is evolving. Or perhaps devolving? Shit. He’s doing his best, as are we all.
Antisemitism lives in the foundations of human society and human nature. The human ego-the desire to enjoy at the expense of others and nature-evolves throughout history and during a person’s life. The more it grows, the more it feels an opposite force also dwelling within. That opposite force is called a “point in the heart.” Contrary to our egoistic desires that wish solely to absorb pleasures into themselves, the point in the heart is a desire that has potential to develop into a desire that loves, gives and positively connects to others.
The point in the heart is also known as the seed of the soul, as we can develop it to discover our soul-the connection that underlies those very points. The realization of the potential encased in this small point of desire is the ability to rise above the human ego, where instead of detaching from one another through our growing egoism, i.e. increasingly prioritizing self-benefit over benefiting others, we instead prioritize the benefit of others and positive human connection.
The point in the heart is the opposite of our egoistic nature. There are people who host only the negative egoistic force, and there are people who have both the negative egoistic force and the positive altruistic force. When both positive and negative forces coexist in us, then we become called “Jews” or “Israel” according to our inner essence. Likewise, if we solely host the negative egoistic force with no revelation yet of the point in the heart, then we are called “nations of the world” according to that essence.
We underwent several stages of development throughout history. The point in the heart first surfaced throughout human society in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians who felt the inner urge to seek something deeper in life beyond the earthly egoistic desires joined Abraham, who taught a method for how to nurture the point in the heart in order to rise above the ego and positively connect. Abraham organized the Babylonians who wanted to study with him into a group, and he called this group “Israel,” which is made up of the words “Yashar Kel” (“straight to God”), i.e. people who aim themselves directly at the attainment of nature’s upper force of love, bestowal and connection, which is opposed to the force existing in human beings, the force of reception.
Since Abraham’s time, the two groups-Israel and the nations of the world-have undergone much development. Some from the Israel camp left the group to pursue their natural egoistic inclinations, i.e. with an inclination to the nations of the world, while some from the nations of the world felt that they possess a special closeness and connection, which draws them to Israel. In other words, Jews are not a nationality, but they are people who host the point in the heart, which associates them with the positive force of nature, and which is opposite to the egoistic force that we are born and raised with by nature.
The source of antisemitism is in the contrast and conflict between the two opposite desires of our inborn egoism and the point in the heart that can develop our ability to rise above the human ego.
What bullshit, so everyone that isn't Jewish is just vulgar and egoistic?