What do you think?
Rate this book
John and the Others: Jewish Relations, Christian Origins, and the Sectarian Hermeneutic
The Johannine literature has inspired the Church's christological creeds, prompted its Trinitarian formulations, and resourced its ecumenical and social movements. However, while confessional readers find in these texts a divine love for the world, biblical scholars often detect a dangerous program of harsh polemics arrayed against the other. In this frame, the Johannine writings are products of an anti-society with its own anti-language articulating a worldview that is anti-ecclesiastical, anti-hierarchical, and, more seriously, anti-Jewish and even anti-Semitic. In New Testament studies, the prefix anti- has become almost Johannine.
In John and the Others, Andrew Byers challenges the sectarian hermeneutic that has shaped much of the interpretation of the Gospel and Letters of John. Rather than anti-Jewish, we should understand John as opposed to the exclusionary positioning of ethnicity as a soteriological category. Neither is this stream of early Christianity antagonistic towards the wider Christian movement. The Fourth Evangelist openly situates his work in a crowded field of alternative narratives about Jesus without seeking to supplant prior works. Though John is often regarded as a low-church theologian, Byers shows that the episcopal ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch is compatible with Johannine theology. John does not locate revelation solely within the personal authority of each believer under the power of the Spirit, and so does not undercut hierarchical leadership.
Byers demonstrates that the Other Disciple is actually a salutary resource for a contemporary world steeped in the negative discourse of othering. Though John's social vision entails othering, the negative other in John is ultimately cosmic evil, and his theological convictions are grounded in the most sweeping act of de-othering in history, when the divine Other became flesh and dwelled among us. This early Christian tradition certainly erected boundaries, but all Johannine walls have a Gate--Jesus, the Lamb of God slain for the sin of the world that God loves.
In John and the Others, Andrew Byers challenges the sectarian hermeneutic that has shaped much of the interpretation of the Gospel and Letters of John. Rather than anti-Jewish, we should understand John as opposed to the exclusionary positioning of ethnicity as a soteriological category. Neither is this stream of early Christianity antagonistic towards the wider Christian movement. The Fourth Evangelist openly situates his work in a crowded field of alternative narratives about Jesus without seeking to supplant prior works. Though John is often regarded as a low-church theologian, Byers shows that the episcopal ecclesiology of Ignatius of Antioch is compatible with Johannine theology. John does not locate revelation solely within the personal authority of each believer under the power of the Spirit, and so does not undercut hierarchical leadership.
Byers demonstrates that the Other Disciple is actually a salutary resource for a contemporary world steeped in the negative discourse of othering. Though John's social vision entails othering, the negative other in John is ultimately cosmic evil, and his theological convictions are grounded in the most sweeping act of de-othering in history, when the divine Other became flesh and dwelled among us. This early Christian tradition certainly erected boundaries, but all Johannine walls have a Gate--Jesus, the Lamb of God slain for the sin of the world that God loves.
255 pages, Hardcover
Published August 15, 2021
1 person is currently reading
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 16, 2023
The Gospel of John has been having something of a renaissance lately within academic circles (and for that matter a hot topic for podcasts and trendy for sermon series from what I've observed). What's driving this renewed interest is given to pure speculation, but if I was to posit a working theory, I might guess that what we are seeing is some of the fruit of the new perspective clearing the clutter of common misconceptions inherent in evangelicalism surrounding what Judaism is and what it believes. This opens the door for the possibility of reengagenent with the texts in its world and with a fresh understanding of that world.
The Gospel of John has a storied history. The composition is considered late, the theology highly developed, the langauge a bit obscure. Perhaps one of the most recognizable problems though is that it is often seen, even unintentionally so by some committed Christians, as anti-Jewish and sectarian in nature. This is no more evident than in the most oft cited verses outside of John 3:16 to this end (8:31-47, 10:22-33), 8 likely being the source of much of this kind of polemical use:
"42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires."
Biblical scholar Andrew Byers challenges this polemicized use of John head on with a heavily researched and largely compelling thesis and argument that submits that while John is often presented as a sectarian voice intent on othering the Jews or a segment of Jews, the Gospel of John is actually making a case for deothering. Not only does he walk through verses like chapter 8 to demonstrate how they have been misinterpreted and how they need to be cast in a non sectarian light, he dutifully shows how moving from an interpretation based on assumed schisms that create this portrait of insiders and outsiders toward recognizing the role of internal critique meant to dismantle such divisions can help us set John's distinct Jewishishness in the light of Jesus and hear the Gospels concern for newness as an appeal for unity in the distcintivness of the Torah now fulfilled. Perhaps most important to this end is recognizing how John's paradigm is built around establishing polarities external to the people- light and dark, good and evil, ect, as a way of locating the issue of division in the larger story of Torah. This underscores the Gospels intent in stripping away the particularities of a group or person as possible means of othering.
Perhaps the most challenging question that shapes this exercise is "why would Jews in a Jewish text negatively call other Jews, Jews?" While this question has plagued readers over the centuries, understanding the world it was written in and the motivations of its intrically patterned and structured literary design can help to shed light on what this internal critique was hoping to accomplish. Byers argues that the Gospel writer (and later redactors and editors) is dealing with an issue of ethnicity that modern day readers need to redefine in light of the ancient Jewish world, and that we can see a shared concern in John within the whole of the NT in terms of what to do with the Jewish story in light of the Messiah's inevitable push outward into the Greek and Gentile world. The language of John explores this same question from within it's own Jewish construct and society, challenging the status quo while also upholding the Tradition. Certainly this fits with some of the current trends in Johannine studies. Scholars are noting the distinct Jewishness of the fourth Gospel, relocating its composition, at least in a conditioned form (evidence seems strong that later communities reorganzed the Gospel's noted parts and passages), to a much earlier time frame, and finding evidence that the writer of John was highly familiar with the other Gospels. What Byers brings to the table is a welcome addition to the ongoing conversation that helps challenge some of the ways John has been weaponized and open us up to the notion of the Gospel functioning as a new Genesis, or a new creation text, that actually wants to raise up the Jewish story in light of Jesus rather than bury it.
The Gospel of John has a storied history. The composition is considered late, the theology highly developed, the langauge a bit obscure. Perhaps one of the most recognizable problems though is that it is often seen, even unintentionally so by some committed Christians, as anti-Jewish and sectarian in nature. This is no more evident than in the most oft cited verses outside of John 3:16 to this end (8:31-47, 10:22-33), 8 likely being the source of much of this kind of polemical use:
"42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires."
Biblical scholar Andrew Byers challenges this polemicized use of John head on with a heavily researched and largely compelling thesis and argument that submits that while John is often presented as a sectarian voice intent on othering the Jews or a segment of Jews, the Gospel of John is actually making a case for deothering. Not only does he walk through verses like chapter 8 to demonstrate how they have been misinterpreted and how they need to be cast in a non sectarian light, he dutifully shows how moving from an interpretation based on assumed schisms that create this portrait of insiders and outsiders toward recognizing the role of internal critique meant to dismantle such divisions can help us set John's distinct Jewishishness in the light of Jesus and hear the Gospels concern for newness as an appeal for unity in the distcintivness of the Torah now fulfilled. Perhaps most important to this end is recognizing how John's paradigm is built around establishing polarities external to the people- light and dark, good and evil, ect, as a way of locating the issue of division in the larger story of Torah. This underscores the Gospels intent in stripping away the particularities of a group or person as possible means of othering.
Perhaps the most challenging question that shapes this exercise is "why would Jews in a Jewish text negatively call other Jews, Jews?" While this question has plagued readers over the centuries, understanding the world it was written in and the motivations of its intrically patterned and structured literary design can help to shed light on what this internal critique was hoping to accomplish. Byers argues that the Gospel writer (and later redactors and editors) is dealing with an issue of ethnicity that modern day readers need to redefine in light of the ancient Jewish world, and that we can see a shared concern in John within the whole of the NT in terms of what to do with the Jewish story in light of the Messiah's inevitable push outward into the Greek and Gentile world. The language of John explores this same question from within it's own Jewish construct and society, challenging the status quo while also upholding the Tradition. Certainly this fits with some of the current trends in Johannine studies. Scholars are noting the distinct Jewishness of the fourth Gospel, relocating its composition, at least in a conditioned form (evidence seems strong that later communities reorganzed the Gospel's noted parts and passages), to a much earlier time frame, and finding evidence that the writer of John was highly familiar with the other Gospels. What Byers brings to the table is a welcome addition to the ongoing conversation that helps challenge some of the ways John has been weaponized and open us up to the notion of the Gospel functioning as a new Genesis, or a new creation text, that actually wants to raise up the Jewish story in light of Jesus rather than bury it.
March 14, 2022
Byers offers an intriguing, readable, and iconoclastic study challenging many common views of the social situation behind John's Gospel. To be fair, Byers recognizes the potential charge of iconoclasm, and explicitly heads it off on page 146 when he writes, "the purpose is not to overcorrect or to demolish longstanding arguments in an iconoclastic spirit, but to complicate the standard model for the sake of opening new seams of understanding." Opening new seams is exactly what he accomplishes.
The issues Byers challenges are as follows:
1. John was a sectarian, reacting against both his fellow Jews and other early Christian groups.
2. John portrays all "other" Jews as "other."
3. John wrote his Gospel as a reaction against other Gospels circulating at the time, and meant for his version to replace theirs.
4. John was anti-authority and leadership.
5. John's focus on the Spirit leads to individualism and a "low church" ethos for his community.
Byers insightfully challenges all of these ideas, but he does so with careful exegesis, theological creativity, and an eye towards modern cultural relevance. His goal is to show that John was reacting against poor leadership among the Jews, rather than all Jews, and that he was not against Jews as an ethnic group, but only in favor of establishing the universal applicability of the Jesus movement. John was not against his fellow Jews, but only against soteriological ethnic favoritism. Byers agrees that John practiced "othering," but primarily as a way to protect his community against cosmic evil. He was not so much against "others," but rather he was for his own people, and his othering language was used not to reject others, but it was used to solidify the dynamics of his own group even as he wanted it to be welcome to outsiders. In some ways Byers swings the pendulum; not only was John not sectarian in quite the ways that scholars usually argue, but he was missional in focus and sought to create a community of "others" who might critique society and offer a more compelling vision of communal life.
Because of its challenges to majority scholarship, Byers' ideas are bound to be challenged. However, as it stands, I find his arguments compelling. I'm interested to see how they are received.
The issues Byers challenges are as follows:
1. John was a sectarian, reacting against both his fellow Jews and other early Christian groups.
2. John portrays all "other" Jews as "other."
3. John wrote his Gospel as a reaction against other Gospels circulating at the time, and meant for his version to replace theirs.
4. John was anti-authority and leadership.
5. John's focus on the Spirit leads to individualism and a "low church" ethos for his community.
Byers insightfully challenges all of these ideas, but he does so with careful exegesis, theological creativity, and an eye towards modern cultural relevance. His goal is to show that John was reacting against poor leadership among the Jews, rather than all Jews, and that he was not against Jews as an ethnic group, but only in favor of establishing the universal applicability of the Jesus movement. John was not against his fellow Jews, but only against soteriological ethnic favoritism. Byers agrees that John practiced "othering," but primarily as a way to protect his community against cosmic evil. He was not so much against "others," but rather he was for his own people, and his othering language was used not to reject others, but it was used to solidify the dynamics of his own group even as he wanted it to be welcome to outsiders. In some ways Byers swings the pendulum; not only was John not sectarian in quite the ways that scholars usually argue, but he was missional in focus and sought to create a community of "others" who might critique society and offer a more compelling vision of communal life.
Because of its challenges to majority scholarship, Byers' ideas are bound to be challenged. However, as it stands, I find his arguments compelling. I'm interested to see how they are received.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews