ESCAPE ROUTES AS DEAD ENDS:
ON HATRED TOWARDS JEWS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT,
ESPECIALLY IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

            Simon Schoon
            (Theologische Universiteit Kampen, The Netherlands)

Treatening
The question is inevitable: Is theological anti-Semitism an indissoluble part of Christian identity? Hence the question: Is hatred towards Jews ineradicable in Christianity, because the aversion to Jews and Judaism originates from the New Testament itself? The Fourth Gospel has often been designated as the most serious source of this evil. There is a strong tendency to answer the provocative and threatening question "Is the New Testament a source of hatred towards Jews?" with an outspoken and simplistic 'yes' or 'no'.
Those who say an off-hand 'yes' to the question asked, call suspicion on themselves of wanting to settle accounts with Church and Christianity in a rather rigorous way. They are convinced of the fact that the register of sins of 'the church' is astonishing anyway; for 'the church' has become implicated in racism and apartheid, oppression of women, colonialism and economic exploitation. And now 'the church' also appears to be the prime culprit of anti-Semitism. The accusation goes even further: the New Testament as document of the origin of Christianity has already been infected by the anti-Jewish poison. On the other hand, those who answer the above mentioned question as quickly as possible with 'no', call suspicion on themselves of attempting to reassure alarmed Christians without really allowing the issue to come up for discussion. With an appeal to the orthodox view of the Scriptures, it is to be considered impossible in advance that the New Testament could encourage hatred towards Jews. But the question-mark can not be removed so prematurely and easily. Reflection should not be stagnated by a premature 'yes' or 'no' to the question discussed here: Is the New Testament, and especially the Fourth Gospel, implicated in hatred towards Jews?

Terminology

In the discussion, the choice of terminology already appears to signify a choice in content. Scholars speak of anti-Judaism, antisemitism and hatred towards Jews. These different terms are hard to define objectively. 'Christian anti-Judaism' is often distinguished from 'non-Christian antisemitism', pointing out that the ideology of anti-Judaism is totally different from the ideology of antisemitism.[1] Since the end of the 19th century, the term 'anti-Semitism' has been used to indicate racist hatred towards Jews, not towards 'Semites' in general, and the Jews are being described as a race of its own with dangerous hereditary qualities. Because of the origin and content of the term 'antisemitism', it would be impossible to apply this to texts in the New Testament, because the term would be used anachronistically in this way. But also the term 'anti-Judaism' was not used before the end of the 19th century to indicate the Christian variant of hatred towards Jews.[2] Although it is important to make a terminological distinction between anti-Judaism and antisemitism, it is from the point of view of the Jewish victims of both ideologies incorrect to credit this distinction with much importance. Anti-Judaism and antisemitism are two expressions of the same phenomenon: that is aversion to Jews and Judaism. Out of polemical motives towards Christianity, scholars sometimes lose sight of the distinction between these two expressions. On the other hand, sometimes the distinction between these two expressions is emphasized too much, and this out of apologetic motives regarding Christianity.             
From a historical point of view, the thesis seems inevitable that theological anti-Judaism has created the conditions for various forms of racist antisemitism, not only in the 19th and 20th century, but already as early as in the Middle Ages. There is, both historically and theologically, no excuse for Christianity having created these conditions with reference to texts in the New Testament. The big question should be if and how Christianity can liberate itself from this burdensome inheritance. From this central question many other questions arise: Would it, by any chance, be possible to isolate the disputed texts and even to remove them from the whole of the New Testament? Or is it really  impossible to isolate a number of crucial texts from the rest of the New Testament, and should it be stated that the source itself is poisoned? Or is the antisemitic effect (Wirkungsgeschichte) of the texts not so much a problem concerning the texts themselves as the problem of the 'evil' in the human heart, which misuses these texts again and again? Or could the original historical contexts of these texts perhaps be explained by more recent exegetic methods, in such a way that the sting is taken out of them? Or should the texts in question, in the context of our time after Auschwitz, perhaps be interpreted in an entirely different and new way?

The assumption that there could be a causal connection between hatred towards Jews and a number of texts in the New Testament, has been experienced by many people in church and theology as a serious accusation. This has led to an explosion of studies which often have a strongly apologetic character. Many attempts have been made to dispel the accusations. However, the fact cannot be denied that, in the course of church-history, expressions of antisemitism have been supported in many ways by quotations from the New Testament, especially by texts from the Fourth Gospel. Studies in exegesis, therefore, should not serve as escape routes in facing the gravity of this matter. These studies may well result in a more differentiated approach to this complicated problem or in the discovery of nuances in the sometimes too general formulated accusation. But scientific studies remain below standard, when the hidden agenda is to deny or excuse beforehand any connection between hatred towards Jews and texts of the New Testament.[3] It is possible to point out distinct tendencies in the large amount of literature on this theme.[4] Sometimes, different approaches and tendencies are found in one and the same study. Following below is an attempt to an enumeration and a distinction at the same time.

a. Negation
Some scholars are convinced that there is no question of any anti-Judaic tendencies in the New Testament. It is seldom denied that texts have been used in later days to substantiate or stimulate antisemitism. However, it is denied that the texts themselves would have given rise to this evil. In this conception, later use of the texts for antisemitic ends is branded as pure abuse. In this approach the New Testament itself has been safeguarded and kept out of harm’s way, but at the same time many later commentators, such as church-fathers, reformers, systematic theologians, and preachers have been put into the dock. Protestant researchers have less difficulty with this approach than Roman Catholic ones. Protestants like to keep the New Testament 'pure' and can accept easier corruption in later tradition. Quite often the reproach is being made to contemporary exegetes, who point to anti-Judaism in the texts themselves, that they project the later abuse back onto the New Testament, and this on psychologically motivated and therefore unscientific grounds.
 
b. Antisemitism in Antiquity
The anti-Judaism in the New Testament is by others supposed to have been influenced in a decisive way by the pagan antisemitism, which frequently occurred in the Greco-Roman world of Antiquity.[5] In Antiquity, Jews were particularly reproached with the following: they were said to be godless because they did not possess images of their deity; they were said to be misanthropists, because they separated themselves from others by their food regulations and interdiction of mixed marriages; they were said to be lazy because of their commandment of Sabbath-rest; and they were said to mutilate their bodies by the practice of circumcision. Besides, curious horror stories were dished up, e.g. about Jews worshipping a donkey’s head in the temple and about an annual ritual murder of Greeks executed by Jews. The New Testament is said to reflect this virulent pagan antisemitism in only a mild way. However, around the beginning of the common era, Hellenistic Jewry also possessed a great charisma and strongly appealed to many non-Jews up to the highest circles. In various Greek and Roman sources, scholars write about Jews and Jewry with sympathy and respect.[6] In Greco-Roman Antiquity, there is no question of a particular hatred towards Jews, but there are general prejudices against all 'barbaric' peoples.[7] Therefore, Christian anti-Judaism cannot on apologetic grounds be reduced to pagan antisemitism. Although some elements have undoubtedly been adopted, Christian hatred towards Jews has added a fundamental religious element to the already existing antisemitic arsenal.

c. Texts versus texts
Again other scholars maintain, that 'negative' texts in the New Testament about Jews and Jewry could and should be refuted and contradicted by 'positive' texts, sometimes even in the same writings by the same authors. Undoubtedly, the ambivalence that is so characteristic for the Christian attitude towards Jews and Jewry, is already reflected in the New Testament. On the one hand, there is the awareness that salvation has come to the Gentiles via the Jewish People, while on the other hand, there is the conviction that the Jews are obstinate and disobedient because, by a large majority, they have rejected this salvation in Jesus Christ. This ambivalence can be found in many places in the New Testament. The evangelist Matthew could be cited in this context. On the one hand, he reserves phrases about the exclusive mission of the apostles towards the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matth. 10:6; 15:24); on the other hand, he speaks about the Pharisees in venomous terms and makes the Jews cry out a 'curse' in front of Pilate’s court-house (Matth. 27:25).  In the Fourth Gospel the ambivalence is expressed in the sharpest way. Many times 'the Jews' are mentioned in the plural form and most of the times in a distinctly negative context. Yet in John 4:22 we also find the sentence "For salvation is from the Jews". But many other texts can be cited, of which probably the most notorious one directed at the Jews is: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires" (John 8:44). It is incorrect to want to suspend texts expressing estrangement and even animosity by referring to texts that reflect kinship.

d. Internal Jewish polemics
Many scholars are of the opinion, that in the New Testament negative texts about Jews and Jewry are only a matter of internal Jewish polemics.[8] Undoubtedly, such polemics often occurred in the first century. Also the prophets of the Old Testament would come down sharply on their contemporaries. And in Jesus’ days, various Jewish factions had sharp confrontations with one another. Only after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the year 70 did the Pharisees, later the rabbis, develop themselves into the leading faction, which led their people through the crisis. But before this destruction, Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, and others stood next to and opposite each other. They often reproached each other in terms just as sharp as the 'anti-Jewish' terms found in the New Testament. The Qumran-community, for example,  called outsiders 'sons of darkness' and 'sons of the devil'. In the beginning, the 'Jesus-faction' was part of the pluriform Jewry of the first century. The very fact that Jesus was so close to the movement of the Pharisees was the cause of polemics, friction and accusations. After the year 70, these handed-down polemics directed at the Pharisees gained a sharper weight, because this group had at that time become the leading faction of Jewry, and the 'church from the Jews' felt they were forced into the defensive by them. It is a matter of a fierce scholarly debate, if the Johannine community around the year 90 can be still be regarded as inside the Jewish community.It is most probable that they felt and were regarded as outsiders, still feeling the pain of the 'schism'.
Drawing attention to these historical circumstances is important, and certainly sheds a vivid light on the texts. But even though pointing out these connections might from a historical point of  view moderate the sharpness of the accusation of  the anti-Jewish character of a number of New Testament texts, this cannot neutralize them. Absolute historicizing of these texts overlooks the fact that they have become theologically authoritative. In the gospels, for example, negative opinions about the Jews are put into Jesus’ mouth and consequently have got absolute authority in the Christian Church.

e. Results of social conflicts
In connection with the above-mentioned, some authors are looking for the origins of  anti-Judaism in Christianity almost exclusively to the social group-conflicts in the first centuries. After the Jewish revolts, the Jewish People recovered from the shock of the destruction of the temple under the leadership of the Pharisees, later the rabbis. In search of new vitality they screened themselves off against people of different beliefs and convictions. The young church, in which gradually gentile-Christians became the majority, found itself forced to respond polemically and apologetically to this new vitality. Jews and Christians were alleged to have been equally in search of new converts in the second and third centuries, and to have used increasingly sharp polemics against each other. A major break-through for this vision on what happened in the first centuries, was the study of Marcel Simon, Verus Israel[9], who - opposed to the dogmatic approaches which often stressed the theological superiority of Christianity - wanted to emphasize social factors, such as rivalry and group interest, as an explanation of the virulent anti-Judaism of the church-fathers. His 'conflicting theory', which has become popular among many scholars, over-accentuates the social factors to explain the Christian aversion towards Jews in the first centuries, and thereby underestimates the force of the theological anti-Judaism that was nourished in all centuries by drawing on a number of New Testament texts.[10]

f. 'The Jews' as representatives
In several studies it is argued that the designations 'the Pharisees' and 'the Jews' in the Gospels should not so much be taken literally-historically but symbolically-representatively. In this way, the Jews in general and the Pharisees in particular are marked as the prototypes of all opposition to the Gospel.[11] They are then able to act as a kind of illustrative model for all disobedience within the Christian community. 'The Pharisees' and 'the Jews' have again and again been given this role in Christian catechism and preaching.
The designation 'the Jews', occurring 71 times in the Gospel of John, and mostly in a very hostile context, forms a particular exegetical problem. It has been tried in various ways to evade the evident anti-Judaism in this expression. Scholars have pointed out that, for example, the designation 'the Jews' mainly refers to the religious leaders who were hostile to Jesus.[12] It has also been argued that 'the Jews' in the Gospel of John are being characterized as the representatives of the unbelieving 'world' (the kosmos), the enemies of God, who find themselves in darkness and who reject the Redeemer that God has sent. Furthermore, efforts have been made to translate the Greek designation hoi Ioudaioi into 'the Judeans' as opposed to the group of Galileans, so as to make the negative reference to the Jewish People disappear completely.[13] This 'solution', however, would lead to strange translations, such as 'the ablutions that are customary among  the Judeans' (John 2:6) and 'the Feast of Tabernacles, the feast of the Judeans' (7:2).
It seems most likely that one must read the hard statements on 'the Jews' on two levels, that is on the level of Jesus’ days and on the level of the time of the author of John, when the contrast between the Christian community and 'the Jews' had become sharper and deeper.[14] This view may moderate the anti-Judaism in the texts, but cannot take it away, let alone serve as an excuse for the anti-Jewish effect of these texts.[15]

g. Sublimation
Sometimes scholars have tried to remove the sting from the debated anti-Jewish expressions in the New Testament by giving some texts a spiritual or devotional turn. In connection with the notorious text of Matth. 27:25 "Let his blood be upon us and our children", it has for example been pointed out that the New Testament invariably speaks about the redemptive blood of Jesus. The gathered people in front of the court house of Pilate are then said to have been imploring, in some kind of unconscious prophetic exclamation - comparable to the unconscious 'prophecy' of Caiaphas in John 11:49-52 - the redemptive blood of Jesus on themselves and their descendants.[16] In this way, the ominous meaning of the exclamation is sublimated, and the notorious text relieved of the suspicion of anti-Judaism. This solution does not only contradict the original meaning of the text, but also ignores nineteen centuries of exegetic tradition, in which this text has made its anti-Judaic marks on the Church and on the history of the Jewish People.[17] The same could be said of many attempts to moderate or sublimate the sharpness of the expression 'the Jews' in the Fourth Gospel.

Escape routes have dead ends. The modifications and moderations turn into excuses and do not, in this way, relieve the accusation of anti-Judaism, but rather sharpen it. The anti-Judaism in the New Testament is the other side of a deep kinship with Judaism and of a strong union with the Jewish People. On the one hand, the Gospel of John expresses that "salvation comes from the Jews" (John 4:22), on the other hand the collective group of 'the Jews' is portrayed as unremittingly seeking to kill Jesus.[18] In one and the same text Jews can be called by the apostle Paul both "enemies of God, for your sake" and "beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (Rom. 11:28). The ambivalence of Christianity towards Judaism is inextricably linked with the history of the development of the Christian community. Christians experience in their identity both kinship and estrangement towards Judaism. In many centuries, this kinship has been suppressed or even denied, whereas the differences have been strongly emphasized. In response to this development, one can find in some circles the opposite in our days: the kinship is being underlined strongly, whereas the differences are being pushed into the background. The great challenge, however, lies in taking up the question whether Church and theology after Auschwitz are capable of overcoming the ambivalence, that often has turned into hatred towards Jews and the Jewish People, and whether Christians can learn to live with the duality of kinship and distinction.

It is no solution to simply remove the controversial texts from the New Testament. This type of biblical surgery would not merely concern a number of texts, but also whole parts, if one were to banish all traces of anti-Judaism. Formally and officially, not any theological or ecclesiastical authority would be authorized to such a rigorous step. Besides, there is not one single religion that treats its Holy Scriptures in this way. In Christianity Marcion, who in the 2nd century tried to banish everything in the Bible that could remind one of Jews and Israel, is condemned because of heresy. There are other, more passable, roads to overcome the ambivalence in Christianity and to counter anti-Judaism. These are roads of a more exegetical and especially hermeneutical character.

Apart from exegesis, it is necessary to conduct research into what has been done in Church and theology with the anti-Judaic texts in the course of time; that is: into the history of the interpretation of the texts (Auslegungsgeschichte) and into the practical effects of the texts (Wirkungsgeschichte). This is necessary because of the fact that, in the history and tradition of the Church, these texts have started a life of their own. Undoubtedly, many of these texts are in their original contexts reducible to historical moments in the painful process of the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians, but they became an indissoluble part of this story of the origins of Christianity. The rejection of Jesus by the majority of the Jewish People could be called the birth-trauma of Christianity. This trauma can be found in many places in the New Testament and is not only to be observed isolated in some singular texts. The Jewish minority, which believed in Jesus as the Messiah,  had to establish its identity over against the majority of Jewry after the destruction of the temple in the year 70. In this internal Jewish polemic after 70 there were many themes that had to be dealt with, but mainly the identity of the Messiah, the view on the Torah and the attitude towards Gentile believers. When the new messianic faith at the end of the first century developed itself, however, into a mainly Gentile Church, the original internal Jewish polemic was not understood anymore and was perceived and interpreted as anti-Judaism. Part of this development is already descernible in the New Testament itself. So anti-Judaism became  part and parcel of the canon of the New Testament.[19]
The Church Fathers felt obliged to prove the superiority of Christianity over against Judaism. Explanations had to be produced to confront and to respond to the Jewish unbelief regarding Jesus. The three arguments that were used most often in the course of time were the following: 1. The Jews were blinded with respect to the obvious meaning of their own Holy Scriptures. 2. The Jews were guilty of Jesus' death and therefore had to be regarded as the ones who killed God. 3. Historical events such as the destruction of the temple and the following dispersion of the Jews were proofs of the divine punishment for the unbelieving Jewish People. To emphasize these arguments, texts from the New Testament were called upon over and over again. In this way these texts gave rise to and were implicated in a history of hatred towards Jews. Therefore, more than exegesis is needed to discover and combat the anti-Jewish effect of these texts.

We have to return to the question, asked in the beginning of this article: Is hatred towards Jews ineradicable in Christianity, because of the fact that the aversion to Jews and Judaism has its origin in the New Testament itself? It is not possible to answer this question unambiguously. What the Jewish scholar David Flusser wrote in 1976 is still relevant:
''The complete picture is not much exciting. Maybe at some time a certain tension between Christianity and Jewry was historically necessary for the development of Christianity as an autonomous, from Judaism independent and different religion. Today we can - unfortunately too late - remove this auxiliary construction  safely. The Christian tendency to anti-Judaism can only be overcome, when the real source is removed. Apologizing escapes cannot be of any help in this case. It should be recognized that Christian anti-Judaism has not been an accidental lapse. Anti-Judaism has been with Christianity from the very beginning.''[20]

It is still a long road before the anti-Judaism and antisemitism in Church and theology is exterminated from the roots, not only on the surface, but also in the depth of the subconscious of Christianity. In our time  though, there rests no longer a taboo upon the theme of 'anti-Judaism in the New Testament', and apologetic studies have become less numerous. According to some scholars however, this theme has lost its relevance because of the fact that in our time of ongoing secularization and of decrease of social influence of the church, one no longer refers to texts of the New Testament to legitimate antisemitism. But the old religious prejudices that have settled in the subconscious of Western civilization can also come to the surface in a secularized form and again lead to outbursts of hatred towards Jews. Apart from that, the duty of the Christian community to combat anti-Judaism in whatever form is not invalidated by the loss of its social influence. In how far there is still a connection in our days between Christian faith and antisemitism is hard to ascertain in a concrete way. In a recent sociological study of the Dutch situation, it has been designated that there is still a certain connection.[21] Although the author makes several reservations in his conclusions, it is yet serious enough, when it is scientifically measurable that church-going and church-affiliation have  through Christian beliefs an indirect influence on the existence of antisemitism. However cautiousy formulated, the following conclusion is still shocking:
 
"The more often one goes to Church, one is more committed to Christian faith, and consequently also     more both religiously and secularly antisemitic.''[22]

If we have still a long way to go, then it is important to give some indicators how to proceed on this road. The following should not be missing:
a. Further exegetical studies are needed. It is of great importance, regarding the seriousness of the accusations addressed to the New Testament, to differentiate and to draw attention to the original context of the texts. These differentiations however, of which the most prevailing are summed up above, should not lead to apologetic positions or evasion of the problem of anti-Judaism in the New Testament.

b. A distinction should be made between the historical and the liturgical reading of the Bible.[23] Within the circle of the worshipping and celebrating community, the Scriptures are revived in the ongoing and returning reading in the liturgy. In this process, texts can not be restructured or even deleted. In this polyphonic reading of the Scriptures, distinctions and contradictions need not be denied or avoided. Apart from the liturgical setting, there is ample room for historical-critical study of the Bible. Both ways of reading can influence one another mutually. Through historical-critical reading of the Fourth Gospel, for example, explanatory remarks can be made in the situation of the liturgical reading of that Gospel, in which 'the Jews' again and again collectively are being cited in a negative way. This is not an easy procedure, because in the tradition of the churches and in the minds of believing people text and interpretation are inseparable.

c. It is a controversial theme, whether theological Sachkritik is permitted and useful regarding a number of texts in the New Testament, that have instigated antisemitism for centuries. Opponents reject this kind of dealing with texts through theological Sachkritik, because it would mean the end of attempts to try to understand a concrete text in a totally different and new way, and so a certain traditional exegesis would be absolutized; furthermore, because by Sachkritik texts would be locked up unjustly in the period when these texts came into being; and finally, because it would be naive to expect that the ongoing anti-Jewish effect of texts in the Scriptures could be removed by theological Sachkritik.[24] Proponents defend the inevitability of this Sachkritik in dealing with anti-Judaism in the New Testament.[25] Certain texts cannot be removed, but should in their opinion lose their theological validity. In this way, it is necessary to assert, contrary to the statement that 'the Jews' do not believe in the true God and have the devil as their father (John 8:44), that the complete Bible proceeds from the conviction that the Jews can have authentic religious experience in the covenant with God and that the whole Christian church is by affirming the Scriptures based upon this conviction. And against the clear tendency of the text in Matth. 27:25 must be stated that this is in conflict with the call to love the enemy in the same Gospel.The discussion on this theme will undoubtedly go on, but theological Sachkritik should, in my opinion, not be excluded in advance.

 d. When the theme of Jews and Judaism comes up in the teaching and preaching of the church, continuously  difficult hermeneutical choices will have to be made. These choices also occur in dealing with the confrontation between certain Bible texts and current ethicals themes, like for example homosexuality and the position of women. Again and again, the following question should be asked: what parts of the Bible and which texts should be referred to in religious teaching about the Jewish People? Responding to this question means the frank acceptance of the presupposition, that all Christians, scholars amongst them too, have their subjective 'canon in the canon'. These 'canons in the canon' must be constantly debated and in every time again criticized as objectively as possible within the Christian community.
In this context the example of the necessity in the Christian community to choose between different New Testament christologies is illustrative. It is in my opinion an hermeneutical challenge par excellence in our time to put forward certain christological emphases in the New Testament that receded into the background, such as that of the hymn in Luke 2:32, which sings of Jesus as 'a light of revelation for the Gentiles' and as 'glory for your People Israel'.[26] By emphasizing that there are several different christologies in the New Testament and making hermeneutically clear why in our present context certain choices have to be made, is it perhaps possible to prevent that antisemitism will always be automatically the left hand of christology.
 
e. It goes without saying that, for preaching and teaching on the theme of Jews and Judaism,  pedagogical and didactical support is urgently needed. Religious education does not only revolve around the explanation of texts, but is primarily engaged in conveying other ideas and reflections to people in church and school, for example on the Pharisees in the Gospel and on the Jews in contemporary Israel. There is already done a lot of scholarly work in this field.[27] The equipment of those who have to equip others is of the utmost importance, because the conveyance in teaching on themes as Jews and Judaism is not only a matter of words, even not mainly, but especially of attitude.

f. Perhaps the most important challenge for churches and Christians is to start a new practice in relation to Jews in general and in the Jewish-Christian dialogue in particular. This new practice of a lived encounter with Jews, as for example is realized in the project of Nes Ammim in Israel[28], gives  Christian theology much to think about and will point out new roads regarding old and new questions.

[1] See for example K.A.D. Smelik, Anti-judaпsme en de kerk. Een verkenning, (Baarn : Ten Have 1993), pp. 65-97. On the other hand: C.W. Mцnnich, "Religieuze en theologische aspecten van het antisemitisme", in: R.W. Munk (red.), Wat is antisemitisme? Een benadering vanuit vier disciplines, (Kampen: Kok 1991), p. 75.