Criswell
Theological Review 7.2 (1994) 103-123.
Copyright © 1994 by The
WHO KILLED THE LORD?
A DEFENSE AGAINST THE CHARGE OF
ANTI -SEMITISM IN JOHN'S GOSPEL
THOMAS
D. LEA
Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary
The
background of Jesus was that of atypical Jewish boy. Jesus was
born of Jewish parents in the homeland of the Jews.
He was raised ac-
cording to Jewish customs and dedicated in the
temple (Luke 2:41-51).
He
passed into adulthood practicing his religion in words and deeds,
and he regularly attended the synagogue. The
teaching of Jesus is very
Jewish
in its content, and a person hearing it is struck with
the authori-
tative demands presented in it
(Mark 1 :22).
At the beginning of Christianity
numbers of Jews accepted the
claims and teaching of Jesus (Acts 2:41; 4:4). The
earliest church was
composed almost entirely of Jews. The idea of
admitting Gentiles who
had not initially converted to Judaism provoked a
serious controversy
in the church (Acts 15:1-35). The church later
became chiefly Gentile,
but a remnant of believing Jews always welcomed
Jesus as Messiah
and Lord (Rom 11:1-5).
Most of Jesus' nation rejected his
claims. We find evidence of this
rejection in the words of John: "He came to
that which was his own, but
his own did not receive him" (John 1:11). Acts
closes with Paul describ-
ing the Jews as people
whose "heart has become calloused; they hardly
hear with their ears, and they have closed their
eyes" (Isa 6:10 quoted
in Acts 28:27).
With the passing of nineteen hundred
years the involvement of
Jews
in the Christian church has changed very little. The church today
is predominantly Gentile, but we find a growing
remnant of Jews. The
last two hundred years have produced some remarkable
developments
among the Jews, and we see unusual evidence of this
in our century.
104
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
The
freeing of Jews from ghettos produced greater economic free-
dom for them. Despite some
significant setbacks this century has seen
a general diminishing of social prejudice against
Jews. Animosity and
prejudice have been replaced in many instances by
growing trust and
dialogue. One result of this new freedom has been
a constructive study
of Jesus by Jewish scholars.1
The number of Jewish writers on the
subject of Christianity has
mushroomed in our century. Jewish publishing houses
are increasingly
producing materials dealing with Jesus and the
Gospels.2 Jewish writers
demonstrate their own distinctive approach to the
Gospels, but most
Christians
would take strong issue with their views.
Jewish scholars distinguish between
the Jesus of history and the
Christ
of faith. They view Christianity as the creation of the apostle
Paul,
who imported Hellenistic ideas and changed the message of Jesus.
They
show more interest in the teaching of Jesus than in his actions
and claims. The familiarity of Jewish scholars with
the Old Testament
and with Jewish backgrounds of the Gospels equips
them to share sig-
nificant insights about the
content of the Gospels. Most Christians see
a deficiency in their approach, but Jewish
scholars can provide assis-
tance in understanding Jewish
customs, culture, and mindset.
Contemporary Jewish approaches to
the study of Jesus reflect the
following general beliefs by Jewish scholars:
1. Jesus came to reform
Judaism, not to bring teaching or ideas
which were new.
2. The content of the Gospels
reflects the theology of the early
church and is not always a historically reliable
source of information.
3. The Fourth Gospel and Paul are
viewed as antithetical to Juda-
ism. Many Jewish scholars do not give them a
serious consideration.
4. The contact of Paul with Gentiles
in spreading the gospel led
him to form a new religion different from what
Jesus had intended.3
The Jews in the Fourth Gospel
The Fourth Gospel uses the term
"the Jews" (Ioudaioi)
seventy
times. The expression frequently occurs in a context
to designate the
1 Donald A Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation
of Jesus (
1984),24. Hagner's survey of Jewish
developments proved helpful in providing material
for the summary of this section.
2 The Jewish publishing
house KTAV republished Claude Montefiore's work The
Synoptic Gospels in 1968 (first
published in 1909). The same publisher has joined with
the Anti-Defamation League in reprinting Samuel Sandmel's A Jewish
Understanding
of the New Testament (original 1956; reprint 1974).
3 For additional
discussion of these ideas see the chapter in Hagner,
"The History
of the Jewish Study of Jesus; 41-71.
Thomas D. Lea: WHO
KILLED THE LORD? 105
opponents of Jesus.4 R. Bultmann provided a classic definition to this
hostile use of the term when he said:
The term oi[ ]Ioudai?oi, characteristic of the
Evangelist, gives an overall
portrayal
of the Jews, viewed from the standpoint of Christian faith; as the
representatives
of unbelief (and thereby, as will appear, of the unbeliev-
ing "world" in general).5
Typical of a contemporary Jewish
response to the Fourth Gospel is
the article by M.J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Chris-
tian Literature at Hebrew
Union College.6 Cook indicates that for Jews
"the nub of the problem. . . lies preeminently with one
expression in
John, namely, 'the Jews.'"7 He notes that the term
"the Jews" appears
only sixteen times in the Synoptics
in contrast with the seventy in
John's Gospel. Most of the usages in
the Synoptics occur in relationship
with the use of the phrase "king of the Jews,"
and the term does not
normally denote the opponents of Jesus.
After examining John's use of the
term "the Jews,” Cook arrives at
the conclusion that the usage does not
"signify any specifically pejora-
tive intent since in other
words employing the term the intent is not
necessarily denigrating of Jews."8
Why then did John use the term?
Cook concludes that John is not a
historian, and thus we cannot
look to the Fourth Gospel for a historically
reliable account of the ac-
tual role of the Jews. He
finds support for his view in the Fourth Gos-
pel's usage of expressions
describing Jesus, himself a Jew, talking with
"the Jews" (John 10:24). He also sees differences
between John's chro-
nology and that of the Synoptics. The appearance of such data in the
Fourth
Gospel leads him to question John's historical reliability.
He suggests that John is primarily a
theologian who has taken
over the term Ioudaioi as a "symbol of
unbelief or disbelief in the
platform John is espousing."9 He
feels that the designation of the Jews
as unbelievers reflects the historical perspective
from which the Fourth
Gospel
was written, a time when Gentile church membership was
growing, and Jewish membership was not. John,
according to Cook,
used the symbol of Ioudaioi to picture unbelief or
rejection of Christ,
but we should not ascribe too much reality to the
portrait. He states
that "by virtue of John's literary license he
has imputed to Jesus the
Johannine theology and, insofar as Jesus is
presented as the Christ and
4 Note, for example, the
references to "the Jews" in 9:22; 10:31; and 19:7.
5 Rudolph Bultmann, The Gospel of John
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 86.
6 Michael J. Cook,
"The Gospel of John and the Jews,” Rev
Exp 84 (Spring 1987)
259-71.
7 Ibid.,
262.
8 Ibid.,
264.
9 Ibid.,
268.
106
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
insofar as in John the Christ and the Father are
one, John has imputed
his personal theology to God personally."10
For Cook the problem with
John's
use of the term "the Jews" is that it represents a faulty, errone-
ous theology.
Cook does consider John to be
anti-Jewish, and he asks how Chris-
tians of today could deal
with the anti-Jewishness of the Fourth Gospel
so as to avoid offending the Jews. He suggests
limiting the use of John
in Christian lectionaries and pruning some of the
more strident lan-
guage of John into footnotes.
He also suggests replacing the term Iou-
daioi in some contexts with a
synonym such as "Jesus' own people."11
Cook
concludes by saying that
John makes Jesus the only way to God, establishing for Christianity a
monopoly on
the truth, and excluding Judaism from access to God. . . . At
the very
least, Jews would wish for a deemphasizing of the Johannine
view
that "no
one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6) in favor of the
judgment that
"in my Fathers house are many mansions" (John 14:2)!12
Cook's view that John sacrificed
historical truthfulness to empha-
size his theological viewpoint is a common approach
to solving the
problem of the usage of the term Ioudaioi in the
Fourth Gospel.
Slightly different from Cook's view
is the outlook of a Jewish
scholar of the previous generation. S. Sandmel, late Professor of Bible
and Hellenistic Literature at the
pel often appears not to be
a Jew and, on the other hand, John is widely
regarded as either the most anti-Semitic or at
least the most overtly
anti-Semitic of the Gospels."13
Sandmel does suggest that the contro-
versies in John "reflect
not Jesus in his age but the ongoing bitterness
between Jews and Christians that had accumulated
in the intervening
decades."14 Nevertheless, his
concluding sentence in a chapter devoted
to an examination of John is that "one cannot
deny the existence of a
written compilation of clearly expressed
anti-Jewish sentiments."15
Sandmel recognizes that the term
"Jews" is used in the Fourth Gospel
with a variety of meanings, but he views the content
of the Gospel as
forthrightly anti-Semitic.
Cook and Sandmel
present an interesting study in Jewish ap-
proaches to the Fourth Gospel.
Both believe that the Gospel is anti-
10 Ibid.,
270.
11 Ibid.,
269.
12 Ibid.,
270.
13 Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism
in the New Testament? (
1978) 101.
14 Ibid.,
118.
15 Ibid.,
119.
Thomas D. Lea: WHO
KILLED THE LORD? 107
Semitic
in its content, but they differ somewhat in their explanation of
the evidence. Cook inclines more to question the
faulty theology and
the unreliable history of the Gospel. Sandmel views the writer as anti-
Semitic
and as reflecting the suspicions of a later generation of follow-
ers of Christ. Both Jewish
spokesmen regard John's Gospel as deficient
in its attitude toward the Jews.
The conviction that the Fourth
Gospel is anti-Semitic is an idea
firmly rooted in the minds of many who are not
biblical scholars. The
February
9,1995 issue of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contained
the story
of an "educational and moral issue" at
Jewish
students objected to singing the German text of Bach's "
Passion,"
The text comes from Luther's translation of John's Gospel,
The
protesters found John's frequent reference to Jesus' opponents as
"Jews" unacceptable. Their dean supported their reluctance.
However,
one Jewish member of the chorus understood that the
text was not
spouting out anti-Semitic ideas but was
expressing the Lutheran sense
of guilt and original sin and had no objection to
singing the words.16
A thorough analysis of the use of Ioudaioi in the
Fourth Gospel
appears in an article by Urban C. von Wahlde,17
Von Wahlde divides
the Johannine usage of Ioudaioi into
three categories. First, he notes a
"hostile" usage in which the Jews "desire to kill
him, to excommuni-
cate him, to stone him, they
accuse him of being possessed, of being a
Samaritan, of blaspheming."18 He finds broad agreement
among ten
previous studies on this subject of the Jews in
the Fourth Gospel. Writ-
ers of these studies
generally agree in their identification of the pas-
sages in the Fourth Gospel which use the term
"the Jews" in this
hostile sense.
A second category of usage is
designated by von Wahlde as "neu-
tral." In this usage
the writer has spoken of Jewish customs (2:6), Jew-
ish people not showing
hostility to Jesus (3:2-5), and the "king of the
Jews"
(18:33).19
His third usage sees the term Ioudaioi as a
reference to the people
(6:41,
52).20 Van Wahlde suggests that the
reference in 6:41, 52 is the
only allusion to Ioudaioi in the Fourth Gospel
which clearly describes
the attitudes and opinions of the common people. He
refers most of
the seventy references to Ioudaioi in the Fourth Gospel to
the reli-
gious authorities. Von Wahlde does not support the historical reliability
16 “In Addition to Which,”
The Religion and Society Report 12
(May 1995) 8.
17 Urban C. von Wahlde, "The Johannine
'Jews'; A Critical Survey,” NTS 28 (Janu-
ary 1982) 33-60.
18 Ibid.,
47.
19 Ibid.,
46.
20 Ibid.,
45.
108
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
of the Fourth Gospel, and he feels that redactional activity has oc-
curred in the text.21
His suggested solution to the meaning
of the term Ioudaioi has
implications for the question of the
possible presence of anti-Semitism
in the Fourth Gospel. "The effect of von Wahlde's work is to narrow the
scope of John's vilification from the people and the
authorities to the
authorities only."22 The unbelief
and opposition in the Fourth Gospel
thus become an effort more supported by the
religious authorities than
by the people as a whole.
Still another interesting study of
the use of the term Ioudaioi in
the Fourth Gospel has been prepared by M. Lowe. He
gathers evidence
from Jewish, Christian, and pagan sources to argue
that "the general
picture for the New Testament period is that the
primary meaning of
]Ioudai?oi was geographical."23
He allows for the usage among Gentiles
and Diaspora Jews of the secondary religious
meaning for the term.
Thus,
the term Ioudaioi
described "Judeans" in opposition to people
living in other areas of
(1)
Idumea and
proximated the entirety of the
historic
John's
Gospel speaks of "
In defense of his position Lowe suggests
that the references to
feasts of the Ioudaioi occur in contexts requiring a trip to
ever the context makes it clear that Jesus was
already in
the words heorte, pascha, and other feast names "occur without any
appendage."26 Lowe questions the
authenticity of the sole exception
which he finds to this principle in 6:4.27
Lowe interprets the phrase
basileus ton Ioudaion to signify "King
of the Judeans" (John 18:33).28
In
the instances where controversy develops between Jesus and the
ioudaioi (10:19, 24, 31, 33;
11:45; 19:38) he finds clear reference to the
Judeans. He contents that the rendering of
"Judeans" is also the proper
translation in 7:35; 9:22; 12:9, 11; and 13:33. He
allows that John 4:9
uses the term Ioudaioi in the sense of
"Jews in general" because this
chapter reflects Samaritan usage.29 He accepts that John 18:20 may re-
21 Ibid.,
45.
22 R Alan Culpepper,
"The Gospel of John and the Jews,” RevExp 84 (Spring
1987) 274.
23 Malcolm Lowe,
"Who Were the IOUDAIOI?” NovT 18
(April 1976) 106.
24 Ibid.,
103.
25 Ibid.,
112.
26
Ibid, 116.
27 Ibid.,
117.
28 Ibid.,
119.
29 Ibid.,
124-25.
Thomas D. Lea: WHO KILLED THE LORD? 109
fer to "Jews in
general," but he suggests that Jews were Judeans in a
wider sense, and the meaning may still be
"Judeans."30
Lowe insists that an understanding
of the geographical usage of
the term Ioudaioi in John's Gospel would prevent mistranslation and
the pernicious practice of anti-Semitism. He feels
that this error in
translation has led to the practice of blaming the
Jewish race for the
death of Jesus (John 19:7) and imputing to them and
their descen-
dants the full responsibility
for this act (Matt. 27:25).
R. Kysar
finds anti-Semitism in the Fourth Gospel, but his method
of finding it is more theological than exegetical.31
To Kysar "the text of
the Gospel nurtures an anti-Semitism that is
properly understood only
in the light of the historical origin of the
document."32 In a rapid liter-
ary analysis of the text of
John's Gospel Kysar makes the following ob-
servations about its treatment of
Jews and Judaism:
1. References to Ioudaioi in the Fourth Gospel
show that the nar-
rator is detached from
Judaism, and the implied reader is thus dis-
tanced from an understanding
of Judaism. Such expressions as 2:6 and
3:25
show the detachment of the narrator from Judaism.
2. The narrator presents the Jews as
enemies of Jesus. Such pas-
sages as 2:18; 6:41; and 8:48 picture the Jews as
opponents who will
seek to kill him (5:16-18; 7:1).
3. The narrator presents the Jews as
untrue to their own faith and
tradition. They fail to observe the Torah (7:19),
and they are truly the
children of the devil (8:39-44).
4. The narrator presents an
ambiguous picture of the Jews by oc-
casionally showing them as admirers
of Jesus (10:24) and even as be-
lievers (8:31; 11:45). Those
mentioned in 8:31 eventually become Jesus'
opponents, and those in 11:45 take actions to
begin the death plot
against Jesus. This ambiguity leads the readers
to view the Jews as
opponents of Jesus and his mission.
5. The presentation of Pilate as
giving in to the plans of the Jew-
ish leaders (18:31, 38-40;
19:4-8, 12-16) suggests that the Jews alone
are responsible for the execution of Jesus.
30 Ibid.,
126, n. 79.
31 Robert Kysar, “Anti-Semitism and the Gospel of John," in Anti-Semitism and
Early Christianity, ed. Craig A Evans and
Donald A Hagner (
1993) 113-27. Many scholars would
differ with Kysar in his detection of anti-Semitism
in John's Gospel. Donald Hagner
defines anti-Semitism as racial hatred. He designates
anti-Judaism as disagreement with
the religious teaching of the Jews. Hagner finds
anti-
Judaism
in the Fourth Gospel, but not anti-Semitism (see Hagner,
Jewish Reclama-
tion . . . , 289). We will frequently
refer to this distinction between anti-Semitism and
anti-Judaism in this article. Not
all scholars make this distinct a variation between the
terms. For one who seems to equate the two terms see Menahim Benhayim, “Alleged
anti-Jewish Bias in the New Testament: A
Response," Bible Translator
(July 1994) 339.
32 Kysar, 114.
110
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
6. The narrator presents Judaism as
inferior to the message of
Jesus
(4:21; 5:39, 45; 6:58). A true Israelite is one who becomes a dis-
ciple of Jesus (1:47).33
Kysar
notes after his survey that "the conclusion is inescapable
that the text of the narrative nurtures a negative
mentality toward Jews
and Judaism."34 What prompted the
narrator to present Judaism in this
light?
Kysar
feels that the term Ioudaioi
should be seen as pointing to
certain Jewish leaders rather than to the entire
Jewish people.35 He
feels that the Gospel was written "in response
to the exclusion of the
Johannine church from the synagogue and the
subsequent dialogue
between these two religious parties."36
He suggests that the polemical
stance of the Gospel is due to this expulsion. He
feels that this polem-
ical quality tells more
about "the evangelist and the Johannine com-
munity than it witnesses to
the ontological status of the Jews or
Judaism."37 He explains that
"the vitriolic attack on Judaism is nothing
more nor less than the desperate attempt of the Johannine Christians
to find a rationale for their existence in
isolation from Judaism."38
F. Vouga
also raises the issue of the presence of anti-Judaism in
John's
Gospel.39 He approaches the issue largely from the standpoint
of the historical background of John's Gospel
rather than by making a
complete exegetical examination of a term such as
"the Jews." His
conclusion is that
Die johanneische Christologie
entwickelt sich innerhalb der judischen
Tradition und in hermeneutischer
Auseinandersetzung mit den Pharisaern,
die die Synagoge angeblich
kontrollieren. Von einem johanneischen Anti-
judaismus kann insofern nicht die Rede sein, als
keine Gegenuberstel-
lung Juden/Heiden, sondern eine Kontroverse innerhalb der judischen
Uberlieferung
und innerhalb der Synagoge in der johanneischen Tradition
stattfindet.40
Since
Vouga sees this debate as a discussion between Jews,
he is un-
willing to describe it with the adjective
"anti-Jewish." The issues in
33 Ibid.,
114-17;
34 Ibid.,
117.
35 Ibid.,
118.
36 Ibid.,
120.
37 Ibid.,
122.
38 Ibid.,
122.
39 F: Vouga,
“Antijudaismus im Johannesevangelium," Theologie und Glaube 83, no. 1
(1993)
81-89.
40 Ibid.,
88. The author's translation is: “Johannine
Christology develops within the
Jewish
tradition and in hermeneutical debate with the Pharisees, who putatively con-
trolled the synagogue. The speech therefore
cannot be from a Johannine
anti-Judaism,
since there was no Jewish/Gentile opposition, but
rather a controversy occurred within
the Jewish tradition and within the synagogue in
the Johannine tradition."
Thomas D. Lea: WHO KILLED THE LORD? 111
John's
Gospel revolve around a debate within Judaism itself between
Christian Jews and those who have not responded
to Christ.
A final insight dealing with the
attitude toward Jews in the Fourth
Gospel
comes from the Bible translator R. Omanson.41 He asserts that
NT
scholars have "nearly universally conceded today" that the NT con-
tains an anti-Jewish bias.42
Omanson offers four statements summariz-
ing the opinions of
contemporary scholars who attempt to counter this
bias:
1. Christian scholars have given
first-century Judaism a bad press.
2. Scholars today are learning to
acknowledge the Jewishness of
Jesus
and are attempting to understand him in the context of first-
century Judaism.
3. The gospel accounts of Jesus read
back into the Gospels the
conflicts of the early church with Pharisaic
Judaism.
4. New studies on Paul are moving to
picture him as other than
the fierce opponent to Judaism which the church has
long understood
him to be.43
Omanson
suggests that NT scholars should attempt to bring these
new understandings into their translations of
John's Gospel. He sug-
gests as an example the following note for John 8:44:
"Many New
Testament
scholars consider the harsh language in this verse to reflect
the violent debate between late first-century
Judaism and the Chris-
tian community which
produced the Fourth Gospel, over the issue of
belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of
God."44
How do these approaches to
understanding the attitude of the
Fourth
Gospel toward the Jews assist us in approaching the
text it-
self? Can we bring any of these understandings to
the text in order
to explain its usage of the term Ioudaioi? Some of
these scholars are
content merely to designate John's Gospel as
anti-Semitic. Others see
the effect of John's content as producing anti-Semitism,
but they feel
that the author is reading conflicts with Jews of
his time back into the
NT period. This writer remains dubious of the
adequacy of most of
these approaches because of the general suspicion of
the historical re-
liability of John. It is not necessary to feel
that the author of the Fourth
Gospel
harbors a blatant prejudice against the Jewish race. It is not
41 Roger Omanson, "Translationg the
anti-Jewish Bias of the New Testament,"
Bible Translator 43 (July 1992) 301-13.
42 Ibid.,
301. Omanson does not clearly distinguish in this
article between anti-
Jewish and anti-Semitic. Although he never uses
the term anti-Semitic in reference to
NT
content, he uses the term "anti-Semitic" in close proximity to the,
term "anti-Jewish"
so that one would easily get the impression that
he equated the two practices. See his
rejoinder to this criticism in a later article by
him in Bible Translator 45 (July
1994)
342-43.
43 Omanson,
"Translating the Anti-Jewish Bias. . . ,"
302-5.
44 Ibid.,
309.
112
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
necessary to accept that John is reading events
occurring during the
period of writing the Fourth Gospel back into the
events of Jesus' life-
time. It is not necessary to accept the view that
John's theology has dis-
torted his historical
perspective.
In our next
section. we will undertake a survey of relevant
pas-
sages in John's Gospel related to the charge of
anti-Semitism. We shall
assume the historical reliability of John's Gospel
after a few brief state-
ments which support this
view. Then we will study the various shades
of meaning which Jesus has given to the term Ioudaioi.
An Exegetical Evaluation
of the Fourth Gospel's Treatment of the Jews
Some who study the usage of the term
Ioudaioi in
the Fourth Gos-
pel feel that the author is
not using the term in reference to the people
of
own time who denied the claims the Church makes
about Jesus the
Messiah."45 Those who follow this
approach feel that the author was
reading the controversies of his own lifetime
back into the earlier de-
cades of the first century. This writer will assume
that the author of
John's
Gospel has faithfully represented the events of A.D. 30-33 and
has not rewritten history to reflect his own later
experiences.
Several features of the Fourth
Gospel assist in convincing this
writer that John's historical accounts are
trustworthy. First, John's own
statement of purpose in 20:30-31 encourages our
belief that the author
has presented reliable information about Jesus
Christ. If John's infor-
mation were not trustworthy,
readers would have no foundation for the
belief which John professes to encourage. Second,
John's frequent ref-
erences to both topographical
(John 1:28) and chronological facts (John
1 :29, 35, 43) encourage a belief that he is
concerned about the histori-
cal accuracy of his writing. Third, John's emphasis
on “witness” (John
19:35;
21:24) suggests that he is presenting information capable of be-
ing relied on. For
additional information supporting the reliability of
history in the Fourth Gospel see the author's
paper “The Reliability of
History
in John's Gospel.”46
Assuming that we can rely on the
author's accurate representati.on
of the events of A.D. 30-33, how did he use the
term Ioudaioi?
Some-
times the author used the term as an ethnic
expression, referring to
45 Robert G. Bratcher, “The
Jews' in the Gospel of John,” Bible
Translator 26 (Oc-
tober 1975) 403. Brown
follows the same approach as seen in his statement that “in the
Fourth
Gospel, then, the evangelist uses the term with the meaning that it had in his
own time." See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John,
City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) LXXII.
46 Thomas D. Lea,
"The Reliability of History in John's Gospel," JETS 38 (Sept.,
1995)
387-402.
Thomas D. Lea: WHO
KILLED THE LORD? 113
the Jewish people (5:1). Here we see no pejorative
significance from
the word, and often the usage reflects a quite
positive evaluation of
the Jews (4:22). A second usage appears as a
reference to people who
live in
who are hostile to Jesus (11:8) and on other
occasions to those who have
responded favorably to Jesus (11:45). We may designate
this as a geo-
graphical usage. In a third usage the author
employed the term to de-
scribe people who were hostile to Jesus (8:48). These
were not
religious authorities, but people or groups of
people who opposed the
words or deeds of Jesus. The fourth usage of the term
spotlights the
authorities in
openly express a hostile response to Jesus, but it is
normally easy to
recognize that the activities of these
"Jews" are contrary to Jesus. We
will examine each of the seventy usages of the term Ioudaioi in
John's
Gospel
in order to determine the category into which the usage fits.47
The Ethnic Usage
The ethnic usage of the term Ioudaioi
identifies a practice or a per-
son as Jewish in background. Some of the references
present a clearly
positive picture of the Jewish people (4:22).
Others are primarily ethnic
in their intent, but they convey a sense of
opposition to Jesus (18:12).
The reference in 2:6 is clearly
ethnic because it identifies the
purification of the water as
following the custom of Jewish laws and
regulations. The phrase "passover
of the Jews" in 2:13 has no hostility
in its usage.
ileans and diaspora
Hebrews called residents of
the Passover was celebrated in the temple in
refer to it as the "passover
of the Jews."48
The reference of 3:1 is ethnic
because it identifies Nicodemus as a
member of the Jewish ruling council. In 3:25 the
author refers to a dis-
cussion between John's
disciples and "a" Jew. The term may have been
used because the Jew who engaged in the debate was
himself a Jud-
ean. John's disciples may
well have been in
of 3:25 occurred. The statement of 3:26 suggests
that John's disciples
may well have been away from John for the
discussion and could have
come to him from some location in
usage in 3:25 as ethnic than to consider that it
appropriately fits into
another category.
47
Bratcher, 409. The author of this paper is indebted to Robert Bratcher
for his clear
analysis of the usage of Ioudaioi in the Fourth Gospel. Although I have not copied
his cate-
gories nor completely adopted
his interpretations, I have found his insights to be helpful.
48 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991) 176.
114
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
The term Ioudaios appears twice in 4:9.
The first usage in 4:9 com-
ments that Jesus is ethnically
Jewish. The second usage in 4:9 indicates
either that ethnic Jews do not associate with
Samaritans or that they do
not use the dishes which Samaritans have used. In
either translation
the teml Ioudaios has an
ethnic connotation. The positive statement
about the Jews in 4:22 suggests that God's revelation
has emerged
through the Jewish people. Brown says, this line
is a clear indication
that the Johannine
attitude to the Jews cloaks neither an anti-Semitism
of the modern variety nor a view that rejects the
spiritual heritage of
Judaism."49
The reference in 5:1 designated the
feast under discussion as
Jewish religious custom. Since the event
occurred in
natural to designate it as a Jewish feast. The
designation in 6:4 de-
scribed the feast as the Jewish passover. The reference in 7:2 identified
Tabernacles as a Jewish feast.
The reference in 11:55 resembles the
usage of 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; and
7:2.
The choice of the teml
"Jews" or "Jewish" was made for reasons
similar to those explained for 2:13.
The designation in 18:12 refers to
the Jews as officials sent to
arrest Jesus in conjunction with Roman soldiers. In
18:3 the author’s
usage of the term "detachment of soldiers"
suggested that Roman aux-
iliaries accompanied the Jewish
officials and police.50 The reference to
the "Jewish officials" in 18:12 is
probably primarily an ethnic designa-
tion to distinguish them
from the Romans who were a part of the
group. They are clearly Jewish officials who oppose
Jesus.
The statement of 18:35 is an ethnic
reference used by Pilate. He
was stating that since he was not a Jew, he had no
interest in the royal
claims which any ethnic Jew would make.
The references to Jews in 19:21, 40,
and 42 are all ethnic in their
intent. In 19:21 the speakers are the Jewish chief
priests. In 19:40 our
author indicated that the burial of Jesus took place
in accordance with
Jewish custom. In 19:42 he referred to
Jesus' day of burial as the Jew-
ish day of Preparation.
One final grouping of ethnic
references in the Fourth Gospel re-
volves around the usage of the
term "king of the Jews." This is a ref-
erence to the Jewish Messiah.
The phrase appears five times in the
Fourth Gospel. In 18:33, 39 Pilate
used the designation in reference to
Jesus.
In 19:3 the soldiers used it in reference to Jesus. In 19:19 Pilate
ordered that the phrase be written and displayed
above the cross. In
19:21
the chief priests protested against its use on the cross by Pilate.
49
Brown, 172.
50
homas D. Lea: WHO
KILLED THE LORD? 115
The Geographical Usage
A second category of usage of the
term Ioudaioi
in the Fourth
Gospel
is to designate the residents of
marily on those people who
live in and near
references have very positive overtones in
reference to the Jews. This
positive usage provides additional evidence
against the idea that the
author of the Fourth Gospel was deliberately
anti-Semitic.
Many of these geographical
references are clustered in John 11. In
11:7
Jesus suggested to his disciples that they return to
the disciples warned Jesus that the Jews had
earlier tried to stone him
(10:31,
39). This reference points clearly to the Jews in
graphical reference. The usage also shows that
these particular Jews
were among the opponents of Jesus, for they
represent people who
were hostile to Jesus.
In 11:19, 31, 33, 36, 45 the term
"Jews" refers to those who came
to Mary and Martha to comfort them after the death
of Lazarus. Some
of these came to faith in Jesus (11:45). The fact
that those who came to
Mary
and Martha are numbered as "many" suggests that the family of
Mary
and Martha was prominent in
discuss the depth of the faith of those who
"put their faith in him"
(11:45).
We would recognize that their faith was deeper than
the faith
of those who went to the Pharisees and tattled
about Jesus. All of these
references present positive statements about the
Jews.
In 11:54 the term "Jews"
still refers to those who live in
the author contrasts these Jews who live in
viduals who reside in the city
of
twelve miles from
the Judean "Jews" resided in the area.
However, Jesus was far enough
distant from
hostile Jerusalemites would not apply to those
in Ephraim. The hostile
Jews
were those in the area of
distance from these.
In 12:9, 11 Jesus has returned to
Judeans, largely from
pair of verses' contain no negative overtones. We
read that "many of
the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their
faith in him"
(12:11).
These Jews are also to be distinguished from the Jewish author-
ities in
Jesus.
51
and he favors the idea that it was in Perea and not in
116
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
The "Jews" of 19:20 were
those who read the title which Herod
had placed above Jesus' cross. These clearly appear
to be Judeans, and
they lived in and near
from the
19:38.
This geographical usage of the term
"Jews" presents a generally
positive picture of the Jews although its primary
usage is to designate
the group as residents of Judea near
is the sole clearly negative reference to the
Jews. Although those in
11:8
are clearly Judean residents, we should distinguish their spiritual
orientation from that of those Jews mentioned in
11:19, 31, 33, 36, 45.
Hostile People
Jesus received hostility from many
different people and groups.
We
are not always able to determine clearly the identity of the oppo-
nents, but we can often
recognize that they may be either ordinary in-
dividuals who are hostile or
authority figures who are hostile. In this
section we will observe examples of individual
people who are hos-
tile to Jesus. In our next section we will observe
examples of author-
ity figures who demonstrate
this same hostility.
The Ioudaioi in 6:41, 52 are probably
the synagogue congregation
in Capemaum (6:59).
Jesus' claim that he is the bread from heaven has
incensed them. They regard him as a fellow
Galilean (6:42), and they
are outraged at his claims. Bratcher points out
that it is reasonable to
identify "the Jews" with "the
crowd" (6:22) and that the author used
the term Ioudaioi when it became clear that they were contesting the
claims of Jesus.52 The fact that this
incident occurred in
it unlikely that these are
The reference to the Jews in 8:22,
31, 48, 52, 57 is to individuals
in
in 8:22, 31, but it becomes apparent as the
discussion develops in 8:48,
52, 57. Bratcher feels that the reference in
8:22 must be to authorities
because the statement of 8:28 about
"lifting up the Son of Man" would
not have been made to the people as a group.53
The cries of the people
as a group played as large a role in the death of
Jesus as did the mach-
inations of the authorities (see
Luke 23:13,18-21; Mark 15:11). This fact
provides a basis for feeling that the reference
to Ioudaioi
in 8:22 is to
hostile people.
52
Bratcher, 405. Brown shows a suspicion of the historical reliability of
the Fourth
Gospel
at this point by suggesting that the objections of 6:41 have "been
introduced here
from another scene” (see Brown, 270).
53
Bratcher, 406.
Thomas D. Lea: WHO
KILLED THE LORD? 117
a fickle faith.54 In the verses which
follow, Jesus declared that endur-
ance in obedience
distinguished those with a fickle faith from those
with an enduring faith (8:32-36). The actions of
these Jews in 8:48, 52,
57
shows that they do not have an enduring faith. Brown
suggests that
a later redactor added 8:31 and felt that it was
reasonable to make
"Jews"
the audience for what followed. He, according to Brown, saw no
contradiction in describing these
believers as "Jews."55
In 10:19, 24, 31, 33 the term Ioudaioi refers
to a crowd of people
showing their hostility to Jesus. The hostility
shown in wanting to stone
Jesus
(10:31) and the attempt to seize him (10:39) appear to be the re-
action of an impatient crowd of people, not the
scheming response of
authorities who held some authority in their hands.
The references of 18:20, 38 describe
people who are hostile to
Jesus.
The fact that the "Jews" of 18:20 are those who come together at
the synagogues or the temple makes it more likely
that these are people
rather than authorities. The designation of the
"Jews" in 18:38 probably
includes some of the authorities supplemented by
vocal supporters
from the people. Such a passage as Mark 15: 11
indicates that the crowd
was not composed merely of Jewish authorities
opposed to Jesus.
Hostile Authorities
Pressure from the
in securing the death of Jesus. The weak-willed
complicity of Pilate
in refusing to reject their requests suggests that
the death of Jesus can
be attributed both to Jewish and Roman leaders. We
should not fol-
low the logic of the request of the Jewish crowd in
Matthew 27:25
and permit the death of Jesus to be blamed
exclusively on the Jews.
In
1:19 those Jews who sent priests and Levites to inquire of John
were probably leaders of the Sanhedrin in
thor identified them as
Pharisees.
The Jews of 2:18, 20 are the
authorities who had challenged Jesus
after he had expelled the animals from the Court of
the Gentiles in
the
informed the healed man that carrying his mat on
the Sabbath was
wrong. When they later talked with Jesus, his claim
that he had a spe-
cial relationship with the
Father riled them. These appear to be Jew-
ish authorities from
The Jews of 7:1, 11, 13, 15, 35 are the authorities in
The
reference in 7:1 seems clearly to describe the authorities because
54
55
Brown, 354-55.
118
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
of the prior statement about the authorities in
5:18. The statements of
7:11,
13 appear as references to the authorities because the "people"
are afraid to speak of Jesus for fear of the
"Jews." Since it is the people
who are afraid to speak in 7:13, it must be that
they fear the Jewish
authorities. It is also the Jewish authorities in
prised at his teaching (7:15).
In 7:35 those who ask where Jesus is
going may well be the guards sent out as
representatives of the
authorities (7:32). The reference in 7:35 is
particularly difficult be-
cause it is entirely possible that these
"Jews" were the authorities
themselves or that the term refers to the people.
The puzzlement ly-
ing beneath the question of
7:35 seems more to belong to the mental-
ityof a crowd of Jewish
people than to the more suave, knowledgeable
authorities.
The references in 9:18, 22 designate
the
9:13
they are identified as the Pharisees. They press forward relent-
lessly in their opposition to
Jesus.
The statements of Jesus about the
Jews in 13:33 may well refer
back to the words of 7:34. It appears that Jesus is
speaking to the au-
thorities in the earlier
reference, and it seems suitable to envision the
same audience here.
The references of 18:14, 31, 36 designate the authorities of Jeru-
usage of the term. The usage in 18:12 is probably
ethnic because it dis-
tinguishes the officers of the
Jews from the group of Romans who went
with them to arrest Jesus. The advice which Caiaphas gave in 18:14 is
clearly to the Jewish authorities. In 18:31, 36
first Pilate and then Jesus
referred to the Jewish authorities. It is more
likely that those who an-
swered the objections of
Pilate in 18:31 are Jewish authorities. It is also
more likely that Jesus was speaking of being
delivered to the Jewish
authorities. In 18:38 some of the people who
supported the authorities
joined with them in calling for Jesus' death.
The references in 19:7, 12, 14, 31, 38 describe the Jewish author-
ities in
part of the crowd which was hostile to Jesus.56
The responses in 19:7,
12
sound more like the responses and accusations of Jewish authori-
ties than expressions from the people. It is
entirely possible that the
group of Jews in 19:14 may contain people hostile to
Jesus as well as
the authorities. Those who request the body of
Jesus in 19:31 would
most likely be the authorities. The "Jews"
of 19:38 are also the Jewish
authorities. It is interesting to observe in this
verse that Joseph of
Arimathea himself is ethnically a Jew. The author
distinguished him
56
Bratcher, 408.
Thomas D. Lea: WHO
KILLED THE LORD? 119
from those Jews of whom he was afraid. It seems
highly unlikely that
a writing that allows usages such as this
contains racial prejudice
against the Jewish race. The author does point
out the opposition of
the Jewish leaders to Jesus, and we should not
fault him for attempt-
ing to display truthfully
their opposition.
The Jews of 20:19 are the same
authorities whom Joseph of Ari-
mathea feared in 19:38. This
same usage had also appeared in 7:13.
The usage in this section is
frequently described as anti-Semitic
by scholars convinced that John has traced the
opposition of the Jews
to Jesus in deliberately stark colors. It appears
that all which the au-
thor has done is to point
out the consistent opposition of the Jewish
authorities in
practice does not demonstrate racial prejudice
against the Jews. It does
show opposition to the theological positions of the
Jewish leaders, and
it is proper to call it anti-Jewish.57
The Historical Answer
Contemporary scholarship may debate
the role of the Jews in the
death of Jesus, but plenty of historical evidence
exists to prove either
Jewish
involvement in the crucifixion or Jewish opposition to Chris-
tians. Three chief sources
corroborate Jewish participation in these
activities.
The first witness to Jewish
attitudes toward Christians appears in
the Jewish historian Josephus. After the death of
the Roman procurator
Festus
(Acts 24:27), Nero appointed Albinus as new
procurator. He also
gave the Jewish high priesthood to the Sadducee Ananus. While Albi-
nus was en route to assume
his office, Ananus convened the Jewish
Sanhedrin
in order to condemn James (Acts 15:12-21; Jas 1:1), Jesus'
half brother, to death. Josephus reported the story
in these words:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assem-
bled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of
Jesus,
who was
called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or, some
of his
companions); and when he had formed an accusation against them
as breakers
of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.58
The church historian Eusebius quotes
the church father Hegesip-
pus (second century) in defense of the fact that
Christianity was the
charge brought against James.59 The
attitude of the high priest Ananus
dramatically echoes the opposition
of the high priest Caiaphas in the
57 See note 31 for a
distinction between the term “anti-Semitic” and “anti-Jewish”
58
Josephus Antiquities 20.9.1.
59
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.23.
120
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
gospels (John 11:49-53). Josephus provides
evidence from a Jewish
source for the intensity of the opposition to Christ.
Such opposition a
generation after Christ's death should make us
hesitant to excise ref-
erences to Jewish opposition to
Jesus which appear in the Gospels.
A second source demonstrating Jewish
opposition to Jesus appears
in the writings of early church fathers. Tertullian described the Jewish
opposition which led to Jesus' death in the
following words:
But the Jews were so exasperated by
His teaching, by which their rulers
and chiefs
were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned
aside to
Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at that
time Roman
governor of
against
Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified.50
In addition to the words of Tertullian we also find similar ideas
repeated in Justin Martyr. Justin indicated that
the opposition to Jesus
which appeared among the Jews in Christ's time also
remained among
Jews of his own time. Justin said,
For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to
such an
extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked
prejudice
against the Just One, and us who hold by Him. For after that
you had
crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man,-through
whose
stripes those who approach the Father by Him are healed,-when
you knew
that he had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, as the
prophets
foretold He would, you not only did not repent of the wickedness
which you
had committed, but at that time you selected and sent out from
of the
Christians had sprung up, and to publish those things which all
they who
knew us not speak against us.51
It is of course possible that
scholars may dismiss the statements
from Tertullian and Justin
by designating them as hopelessly anti-
Semitic. Those who would do this are trying to
rewrite history instead
of interpreting it as it appears in documents of
the times.
A third source of information about
Jewish attitudes toward Jesus
possibly appears in the Babylonian Talmud.
Certainty about the refer-
ences to Jesus is difficult
because scholars debate whether there are ac-
tual references to Jesus in
this material.52 Tractate Sanhedrin uses the
name Yeshu in probable
reference to Jesus and indicates that he had
five disciples, each deserving to die. The tractate
notes that Yeshu was
put to death on Passover Eve for the practice of
magic and the decep-
60 Tertullian
Apology 21.
61
Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 17.
62 Hagner,
Jewish Reclamation, 46.
Thomas D. Lea: WHO KILLED THE LORD? 121
tion of
thing to be spoken in his favor. No response was
given to the plea.63
Scholars do not accept the
references as thoroughly reliable in
the historical accounts. The material is important
because it reflects
the Jewish attitude of the late Talmudic periods.
This distaste proba-
bly developed over the
centuries, and we may feel confident that the
attitude could have reflected first-century
attitudes toward Jesus.
It is also important to point out
the anti-Jewish attitudes in some
sections of the OT. We should be careful to
define anti-Jewishness as
opposition to Jewish religious practices and not as
prejudice against
the Jews as a race. The historical writer of 2 Chron 36:11-16 recorded
accurately the Jewish opposition to the messages of
the prophets. The
prophet Isaiah described his people as those
"loaded with guilt" who
had "forsaken the Lord" (Isa 1:4). Later he pictured them as "rebel-
lious; "deceitful; and
"unwilling to listen to the Lord's instruction" (Isa
30:9).
The words of Jeremiah corroborate the picture painted
by Isaiah.
(Jer 3:6; 7:25-26; 11:7-8; 18:23). The OT prophets were
quick to point
out the stubborn resistance of the Jewish people to
messages from Je-
hovah. The words of Josephus,
the early church fathers, and even the
words of the Babylonian Talmud substantiate this
picture. A rejection
of the NT picture of Jewish opposition to Jesus
and to Christians
seems to represent a tampering with the historical
evidence. This evi-
dence presents a consistent
pattern of Jewish opposition to Christians
and to Jesus.
The Conclusion
Who is responsible for the death of
the Lord? Should we excul-
pate the Jews for Jesus' death because of alleged
anti-Semitism in the
gospels? Should we allow our present sympathy
for the victims of the
Nazi
Holocaust to influence our interpretation of the NT evidence?
In answering these questions in
reverse order we should give a
resounding "No!" to the second and third
questions. Those who have
followed through this paper should recognize that
this writer has dis-
puted the charge of
anti-Semitism in the gospels. It is admitted that
the gospel writers do show opposition to the
unbelief and resistance
of the Jews of Jesus' time to Christians and to
Christ himself. This ad-
mission represents the acceptance of the gospel
portraits of the Jews
as historically accurate.
Who then killed the Lord? There is a
sense in which the sins of
all sinners contributed to the death of Jesus, but
that is not the sense
63 b. Sanh. 43a.
122
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
in which this writer has asked the question. We
can develop an answer
to the question as we observe the following
principles:64
1. The idea of Jewish collective
guilt for Jesus' death is totally in-
accurate. Jewish participation in the events of
Jesus' passion should
not be used as a basis for explaining the death of
Jews during the
Holocaust.
2. It is also improper to apply the
idea of collective guilt even to
the generation of Jews contemporary with Jesus. Not
all Jews of Jesus'
lifetime sought the death of Jesus.
3. The Gospels accurately show that
Jesus had his opponents
among the Jews, and we can assume that a crowd did
shout, "Crucify!
Crucify!"
Those who made this cry seem to have been "a group per-
fectly orchestrated by Jesus'
priestly adversaries to demand the release
of Barabbas
instead."65
4. Jesus also had friends among the
Jews, and most of these seem
to have been absent from the proceedings of his
arrest, hearings, and
trial until it was too late. Some did get the message
about Jesus' convic-
tion, and Luke reports that
"a large number of people followed him,
including women who mourned and wailed for
him" (Luke 23:27). It
is also important to remember the 120 Jewish
Christians before Pente-
cost (Acts 1:15); the 3000 Jewish converts at
Pentecost (Acts 2:41); the
5000
who soon appeared (Acts 4:4); and the many Jewish priests who
became believers (Acts 6:7). Paul spoke of a
"remnant" of the Jews liv-
ing in his day (Rom 11:5).
5. References to "the Jews,”
particularly in the Fourth Gospel,
have at least four obvious meanings as proposed in
the exegetical sec-
tion of this paper. Not all
Jews opposed Jesus, but some, particularly
those influenced by the high priestly families,
stubbornly sought his
death (Luke 23:13,21). We should not brand the Fourth
Gospel as anti-
Semitic for similarly using the plural "the
Jews."
On the other hand, we
should not allow this "in-house" usage among
Jews to lead those of us
who are Gentiles to make pejorative conclusions
against the Jews.66
6. We should not view the statement
of Matt 27:25 as a wish by
the Jews but rather as a statement by those Jews
who were present to
accept responsibility for Jesus' death. It goes beyond
the biblical state-
ment to press these words
into a basis for an eternal curse on the
Jewish people. Matthew may have
included these words so that his
64 Many of these ideas
are developed from Paul L. Maier, "Who Killed Jesus?"
Christianity Today, 9 (April 1990) 17-19.
65 Ibid.,
19.
66
Ibid.
Thomas D. Lea: WHO
KILLED THE LORD? 123
readers could "understand that the loss of
to be interpreted in the light of their rejection
of Jesus."67
7. The words of the gospel writers
are neither explicit citations
nor fabrications. They represent "the living
and powerful words of
Jesus
in a fresh way for his readers, while faithfully and accurately
presenting the 'gist' of what Jesus said."68
Luke's statements in 1:1-4
suggest that the gospel writers had a concern
for accuracy, and most
Jews
exercised great care in passing on divinely associated events from
one generation to another. We should realize that
an accurate summary
of Jesus' teaching is fully as reliable as his
actual words.
Is it anti-Semitic to suggest that
the Jews of Jesus' lifetime vigor-
ously opposed his teaching
and his work? If we realize that the Jews
who opposed Jesus represented an elite group among
NT Jews, we
are not showing a pejorative attitude toward the
Jews as a race by
merely pointing out this fact.
Is it anti-Jewish to suggest that
the Jews of the first century and of
this century hold attitudes toward Jesus Christ with
which Christians
would almost universally disagree? If we define anti-Jewishness as
indicating our differences with the Jewish
religion, Christians would
only be stating their beliefs by demonstrating how
they differ from
first-century and contemporary Jews.
One contemporary Jewish be-
liever has explained his views
in this way:
The fact remains, that for many believing Christians, neither the Or-
thodox Judaism of the New Testament era nor of our
own era can be the
ultimate
word of God for anyone convinced of the uniqueness of Jesus
Christ. It is not necessarily
anti-Jewish to hold such a position.69
Were the Jews involved in the death
of Jesus? Yes, but we can also
say that the Romans were involved in his death
(John 19:15-16). The
truth is that both Jewish and Roman participation led
to the death of
Jesus.
The admission of this fact is not an evidence of anti-Semitism,
but it represents an effort to accept the
trustworthiness and reliability
of the Gospels.
67 R T.
France, Matthew, TCNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 393.
68 Darrell L. Bock, "The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive,
or Memorex?”
Jesus Under
Fire
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 77. Bock's article contains excellent
additional information defending the
trustworthiness of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life.
69 Menahim
Benhayim, "Alleged anti-Jewish Bias in the New
Testament: A Re-
sponse; Bible Translator 45 (July 1994) 340.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: