Can you help me understand aspects of John 8?
July 22, 2019 3:58 AM Subscribe
In a short story, I want some weird people to have John 8:44 on a placard on their door. But reading up on it, I fear there's no way to use it that won't have an (unintended) antisemitic cast to it. But then again, I'm not religious. Can you help me understand John 8 and formulate 8:44 so it's not icky? More below the fold.
John 8:44 reads: "When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of liars."
Idiotically, I sort of wrote a story around this verse without looking up the context carefully. In the story, it highlights the theme of the difficulties of a honest life in times that require it. If that makes sense.
Before today, what I knew of the verse is that it's Christ speaking to a bunch of people who don't believe his teachings, and he's telling them that they can't be receptive to his teachings because they live in a society that is fundamentally dishonest, they are enslaved but don't know they are because of the lies they believe in.
Today I started reading more and see that in John 8 Christ is talking to a bunch of Jews who are sort of messing with him? Okay, whoops.
What I want to know, what is Christ talking about in terms of the lies that the Jewish people believe in that preclude their belief in his teachings? To put it in an ignorant way, is he referring to an aspect of the Jewish faith that would therefore render John 8:44 insulting to anybody of the Jewish faith?
THANK YOU and sorry for being such a heathen
John 8:44 reads: "When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of liars."
Idiotically, I sort of wrote a story around this verse without looking up the context carefully. In the story, it highlights the theme of the difficulties of a honest life in times that require it. If that makes sense.
Before today, what I knew of the verse is that it's Christ speaking to a bunch of people who don't believe his teachings, and he's telling them that they can't be receptive to his teachings because they live in a society that is fundamentally dishonest, they are enslaved but don't know they are because of the lies they believe in.
Today I started reading more and see that in John 8 Christ is talking to a bunch of Jews who are sort of messing with him? Okay, whoops.
What I want to know, what is Christ talking about in terms of the lies that the Jewish people believe in that preclude their belief in his teachings? To put it in an ignorant way, is he referring to an aspect of the Jewish faith that would therefore render John 8:44 insulting to anybody of the Jewish faith?
THANK YOU and sorry for being such a heathen
Best answer: The shooter at the Pittsburgh synagogue had the first part of John 8:44 in his social media profile, and Jesus talking to the Pharisees in JKohn 8 has been the subject of a lot of heated research about antisemitism by Biblical scholars (source: I got most of the way through an MA in early Judeo-Christian relations).
I really don't think you're going to get away from an anti-Semitic connotations, here, for anyone who knows John.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 4:27 AM on July 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
I really don't think you're going to get away from an anti-Semitic connotations, here, for anyone who knows John.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 4:27 AM on July 22, 2019 [6 favorites]
Best answer: My interpretation is that Jesus is trying to reach the Jews he is preaching to; to (re-) awaken their spirituality. They are resistant to his message, claiming that it contradicts good Jewish teaching. He scoffs at the notion that they are good Jews as he is trying to show them that they mostly ignore the Law. Insulting? Possibly; at the very least it’s a hard teaching.
posted by coldhotel at 4:28 AM on July 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by coldhotel at 4:28 AM on July 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: OH SHIT the Pittsburgh shooter had it in his profile?
OK, I really do hate myself right now.
It's out of the story and I'll turn to a non-Biblical source to make my point
posted by angrycat at 4:54 AM on July 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
OK, I really do hate myself right now.
It's out of the story and I'll turn to a non-Biblical source to make my point
posted by angrycat at 4:54 AM on July 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
Best answer: So to give more context, Jesus spends much of the Gospels debating with the Jewish establishment in this manner. If we posit a historical Jesus, he seems to be the leader of some kind of charismatic Jewish reform movement (which were a dime a dozen in this tumultuous era).
Later, of course, early Christianity failed to gain traction in the Jewish community and became a religion dominated by non-Jews. The gospel of John was written at a time when Christianity was trying to figure out if it was part of Judaism or not, and this debate is highly visible in the text.
As Christianity becomes an established, non-Jewish religion, the latent proto-anti-Semitism in the New Testament is weaponized, and it's never shaken that history.
posted by toastedcheese at 5:11 AM on July 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
Later, of course, early Christianity failed to gain traction in the Jewish community and became a religion dominated by non-Jews. The gospel of John was written at a time when Christianity was trying to figure out if it was part of Judaism or not, and this debate is highly visible in the text.
As Christianity becomes an established, non-Jewish religion, the latent proto-anti-Semitism in the New Testament is weaponized, and it's never shaken that history.
posted by toastedcheese at 5:11 AM on July 22, 2019 [10 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks so much for the context, guys. Really appreciate it.
posted by angrycat at 5:24 AM on July 22, 2019
posted by angrycat at 5:24 AM on July 22, 2019
Best answer: If you are interested in some deep exegetical nerding, here's a bit from a commentary I have:
posted by jquinby at 5:59 AM on July 22, 2019
44. you are from the devil as father: the only "father" that those who seek to kill Jesus can claim is the one who is Cain's father, the devil. Targumic tradition understood Cain to have been faced with the choice of mastering the "evil inclination" within and thereby being righteous or committing sin. 1 John 3:8-12 shows us how this tradition was applied within the Johannine community. The dualism of being "from God" or "from the devil" is made evident in a person's deeds. In 1 John the "deed" in question refer to loving/not loving fellow Christians. Here, the decisive factor is loving/not loving Jesus (v 42). The [Dead Sea Scrolls] contrast the "sons of light" who "walk in God's truth" with the sons of Belial...It is important for Christians to recognize that this dualism can be used within Judaism itself to separate those who walk according to God's law from those who are sinners. 1 John adapts it from general ethical exhortation among Christians to meet the situation in which Christians were divided among themselves. The farewell discourse in John 14 returns to this theme from the point of view of the disciples who "love Jesus" and through him are brought into a new relationship with the Father. These statements do not imply divine condemnation of the Jews as a people.There's plenty here to unpack, but I don't think it lends itself well to a bumper sticker.
(New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Raymond Brown ed.; internal citations removed for brevity)
posted by jquinby at 5:59 AM on July 22, 2019
Best answer: I read a book not long ago - I think it was Christ Actually: Reimagining Faith in the Modern Age - that pointed out that when the gospels were written, there was horrific persecution of Jews by the Romans. It was therefore politically expedient to portray the Jews as against Jesus and responsible for his death so that the authors would not be perceived as anti-Roman.
Someone can tell me if I am completely misremembering this or that there’s some historic reason I must have it wrong.
posted by FencingGal at 6:23 AM on July 22, 2019
Someone can tell me if I am completely misremembering this or that there’s some historic reason I must have it wrong.
posted by FencingGal at 6:23 AM on July 22, 2019
Best answer: It was therefore politically expedient to portray the Jews as against Jesus and responsible for his death so that the authors would not be perceived as anti-Roman.
It's a very complicated situation (so complicated that I'm sure what I'm about to say is itself open to considerable dispute/correction). As toastedcheese points out above, at the time the gospels were being reduced to writing there was still considerable debate over whether Christianity was a splinter sect of Judaism (which is how it started) or its own religion. So, to the extent you're thinking of Jews generally as a sort of "evil other" onto which events could be conveniently projected by the authors, it's not quite right. On the other hand, while the events in the Gospels (supposedly) took place prior to it, they were being written down after the first Roman-Jewish War, a rebellion in the Roman province of Judea in 66 AD that led to the famous second destruction of the Temple and the burning of most of Jerusalem. Note that this was not quite religious persecution in the sense that we understand it today; the Romans ruled over groups of many different religions and were (initially) largely indifferent to the nature of those beliefs to the extent that they didn't interfere with imperium. However, with religion so closely linked to ethnic identity for some groups, if they did rebel, symbols of their religion would be attacked as well (and it's not any nicer to have your temple burned or your high priests executed as a political than as a theological matter). Followers of Christ, however they regarded themselves, would presumably have been eager to avoid implications that he was a criminal in the eyes of the Roman authorities; easier to cast it as a matter of Jewish infighting (the Pharisees and Saducees come off badly throughout).
Anyway, I'd be very careful with texts like these, as uses by later Christian authorities have inevitably added anti-Semitic connotations even if initially they were more about infighting.
posted by praemunire at 8:39 AM on July 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
It's a very complicated situation (so complicated that I'm sure what I'm about to say is itself open to considerable dispute/correction). As toastedcheese points out above, at the time the gospels were being reduced to writing there was still considerable debate over whether Christianity was a splinter sect of Judaism (which is how it started) or its own religion. So, to the extent you're thinking of Jews generally as a sort of "evil other" onto which events could be conveniently projected by the authors, it's not quite right. On the other hand, while the events in the Gospels (supposedly) took place prior to it, they were being written down after the first Roman-Jewish War, a rebellion in the Roman province of Judea in 66 AD that led to the famous second destruction of the Temple and the burning of most of Jerusalem. Note that this was not quite religious persecution in the sense that we understand it today; the Romans ruled over groups of many different religions and were (initially) largely indifferent to the nature of those beliefs to the extent that they didn't interfere with imperium. However, with religion so closely linked to ethnic identity for some groups, if they did rebel, symbols of their religion would be attacked as well (and it's not any nicer to have your temple burned or your high priests executed as a political than as a theological matter). Followers of Christ, however they regarded themselves, would presumably have been eager to avoid implications that he was a criminal in the eyes of the Roman authorities; easier to cast it as a matter of Jewish infighting (the Pharisees and Saducees come off badly throughout).
Anyway, I'd be very careful with texts like these, as uses by later Christian authorities have inevitably added anti-Semitic connotations even if initially they were more about infighting.
posted by praemunire at 8:39 AM on July 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
OK, I really do hate myself right now.
Nah, think of it this way. You didn't know anything but had an inkling something was off, so you asked instead of powering through. This is a good thing; it's why people have sensitivity readers.
I will say, as a general guideline, if you think "huh, does this old thing seem vaguely anti-Semitic?" the answer is generally "yes, and when you add in centuries of interpretation or layers of meaning, there's more anti-Semitic context than you could possibly imagine". Goes doubly for anything in the Bible.
(Also he had the "the children of Satan" bit in his profile, not "liars" bit, but yeah.)
posted by flibbertigibbet at 2:14 PM on July 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
Nah, think of it this way. You didn't know anything but had an inkling something was off, so you asked instead of powering through. This is a good thing; it's why people have sensitivity readers.
I will say, as a general guideline, if you think "huh, does this old thing seem vaguely anti-Semitic?" the answer is generally "yes, and when you add in centuries of interpretation or layers of meaning, there's more anti-Semitic context than you could possibly imagine". Goes doubly for anything in the Bible.
(Also he had the "the children of Satan" bit in his profile, not "liars" bit, but yeah.)
posted by flibbertigibbet at 2:14 PM on July 22, 2019 [5 favorites]
« Older Recommend me a drawing app for Windows that won't... | Help Me Log Back Onto My Faith-Healed Computer Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Christ is speaking symbolically and the Jews he is addressing are interpreting things literally. They were proud of their heritage descended from Abraham. Christ is saying if they were truly Abraham's children, from a symbolic or spiritual perspective, they would believe what he was teaching. Since they are not believing, their father spiritually is the devil.
Depending on the specifics of your story, I rather doubt you would be able to avoid a tinge of antisemitism at best.
posted by ericales at 4:22 AM on July 22, 2019