Presently, I'm translating the Fourth Gospel, John. In here, I'm often surprised to see references to "the Jews", or, at times, the ambiguous term "Judeans". As a post WWII student, I find this unsettling. However, as I make progress throughout the gospel, I see the usages in a nuanced fashion; this is evident in chapter 11. Regardless of how I feel, however, I still need to understand the gospel within its contemporary setting. For me to impose my modern ideals is to do violence to the text, and I refuse to do that! On one hand, if the text has friction with the first century Jews, then there's nothing I can do about it, and will have to read and understand the text as how it stands. That, however, does not justify any actions taken against Jews-that would be an abuse of a text as well. Yet, on the other hand, there is another danger we face being modern Christians, in particular having fundamentalist tendencies. I've heard many people discuss "legalism", and reference "the Law" with disdain. This, of course, is with the stereotyping of Jews, both from this time, and of the past. (Oddly enough, the Jews seem to have more freedom in things, e.g., drinking, clothing, etc.) Frequently, I hear of "Judaizers" in discussion of Pauline literature, and it's always in a negative context. This, too, is anachronistic, but on the other end of the spectrum. Since the reformation (though the inquisition made use of racism too), Christianity has had a tendency to downplay Jesus' Jewishness, and emphasize Jesus in a non-historical light. In my biblical studies courses, I'm surrounded and taught by wonderful Baptists, but I find myself in disagreement with them in their approach to the scriptures-this is not because I'm a Pentecostal (sorry about that, guys-it's just far more than that). I see that their reformed traditions have them interpret the Bible with bias, and that bias has to be seen for what it is. As part of a separate discussion, but since I enjoy irony, these fellow students, and professors also have a tendency to be Zionist, an odd contradiction.
Now, I am not alluding to, or suggesting that the reformation tradition is antisemitic, in particular toward first century Jews. These are tendencies that have been strong due to readings of certain traditions, Luther in particular (I was just reminded this morning how Luther was just vile at times towards others, e.g., Zwingli, along with Jews). Though I think Luther is one of the best theologians, I find myself not caring for his theology. What I am saying is that we must be cautious of how we interpret the scriptures. We can look through our perceptions, and see what we've been told to see, and not anything else. This post is to show that we can take two different approaches to the scriptures and be nowhere near the truth. I have to be cautious as to anachronistically being apologetic in my reading, because of WWII, and others have to be cautious in reading through antisemitism. As another side note, I am not a Zionist. Hence, showing another paradox.
Here's the post that got me on my little, but sturdy (because of my weight) soapbox.
http://historicalchaos.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/rudolf-rocker-on-houston-stewart-chamberlain-and-fascist-scholarship/
No comments:
Post a Comment