No Robots

Brunner stands things back up on their feet:

Christ was a Jew, his religion was and remained the Jewish; and if now we Jews protest – more thoroughly protestant than under you – against the entire Christianity, against the Augustinian-Thomist and against the Augustinian-Lutheran Christianity and against all and each type of Christianity, old and new? How, if we protest in the name of Christ, in the name of the real Christianity of Christ because this is the real Judaism? More powerful today is our protest than ever formerly. Today Judaism protests no longer without Christ, but rather Judaism with Christ; today Christianity protests against Christianity: our true Christianity, i.e. the real Judaism of us real Jews against your false Christianity. We come to the point of saying that we alone are Christians, as soon as we want – and come to it also through what we did not want and do not want: through our renunciation, through our passion story and via dolorosa! – We are Christians as soon as we give this doctrine of Jesus and the apostles its true Jewish interpretation and acknowledge its place.--Constantin Brunner / "Rede der Juden: Wir wollen ihn zurück!" ["Speech of the Jews: We want him back!"]. In Der Judenhass und die Juden, p. 435.

sotto voce

Brunner has to show how John hated. Hated anyone. Let's see a coherent quote.

No Robots

This is well known. You can read up on it in Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament#Gospel_of_John.

sotto voce

Please do not lower the tone by mention of Wikipedia. I will assume that it is admitted that Brunner misrepresented, failing supporting quote of his work.

stephan huller

Right but you asked me what the term meant to members of my family's community. For instance they were all GERMAN Jews which meant that - in their mind at least - they were superior to all the untermenschen Jews who happened to have traveled through Germany centuries earlier and lived in eastern European countries. This phenomenon was not isolated among German Jewry. Everyone looked eastward and say 'there is where the bad Jews are.' The absurdity only becomes more pronounced when German Jews are directing what amount to traditional German bigotry and hatred towards the hated Slavs in light of historical circumstances. Nevertheless I am only reporting the news not making it up. My great grandmother for instances was interned at Bergen Belsen and other concentration camps. When she got out she wouldn't even speak to a Jew that didn't speak German properly. She would only hint at what she saw going on in the camps, but was oddly embittered by being lumped together with these 'khazarim.' She considered herself German in the same way that a lot of non-believing, non-practicing Jews today see themselves as American.

No Robots

The wikipedia article has quotations from scholars who echo what Brunner said. For example, we have:

The Fourth Evangelist is still operating within a context of intra-Jewish factional dispute, although the boundaries and definitions themselves are part of that dispute. It is clear beyond doubt that once the Fourth Gospel is removed from that context, and the constraints of that context, it was all too easily read as an anti-Jewish polemic and became a tool of anti-semitism. But it is highly questionable whether the Fourth Evangelist himself can fairly be indicted for either anti-Judaism or anti-semitism.-- J.G.Dunn. "The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period." Jews and Christians: the parting of the ways, CE 70 to 135 (or via: amazon.co.uk). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999. Page 209.

sotto voce

So it is highly questionable whether John can fairly be indicted for either anti-Judaism or anti-semitism. Quite!

No Robots

Quite, indeed. What Brunner and other scholars are saying is that John is a Jew who is engaged in sectarian polemics.

sotto voce

That's not 'hatred for the other Jews and their Judaism'.

No Robots

Sure it is. Polemics = war.