Reddit mentions of John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century

I recommend reading the book "John Chrysostom and the Jews" (https://www.amazon.com/John-Chrysostom-Jews-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/1592449425) which goes into a lot of detail about Christian-Jewish relations and the nature of rhetoric and public dialogue in the times when these many of these things were written, focusing on St. John Chrysostom's writings on the Jews. I am a Jewish convert to Orthodoxy and found this to be a very pressing topic and this is probably the best resource I've found discussing it.

To my knowledge the canons regarding Jews all have to do with doing things that, whether or not we acknowledge it today, involve participation in Jewish rites. So we are forbidden by the canons to do things like "eat unleavened bread with the Jews", but that doesn't mean sitting around and eating some crackers as a snack with a Jewish friend, it means participating in the fast that precedes the Passover. In general, canons that have to do with "not associating with" certain groups mean, I take it, to not associate with them religiously, i.e. to not get into undue theological discussion (often fruitless, unless they approach first), not fast or pray together with them (because we are not of the same faith), and to not engage in, or regard as legitimate, their sacramental or theological proclamations that are contrary to Orthodoxy, if there are any. If you can find a reference to an actual canon that says flat out "do not associate with Jews, period", what is the reference? I assume that because there are many references to specific things to not do with Jews (or heathens, pagans, etc), that there isn't this overall stricture on top of all of these, since if we can't associate with Jews at all, why do we need to be told to not fast with them?

FWIW, this is a personal issue for me, as I am myself a Jew from Israel, my entire family are Jews (and I live at home with them), obviously I still interact with them on a regular basis, eat meals with them, and am in every other way a member of their family. I don't, however, light Hannukah candles with them, or go to the Passover seder, or do things that are clearly expressions of (non-Christian) Jewish belief, etc.

It isn't about canonical prohibitions, but https://www.amazon.com/John-Chrysostom-Jews-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/1592449425 this book explains in detail how to interpret words about the Jews in the writings of John Chrysostom, although what he says applies almost across the board for liturgical texts and canons that mention the Jewish people. (EDIT: This helped me a lot to understand the meaning of anti-Jewish sounding hymns -- they were written under very different circumstances than we have today and understanding ancient caustic rhetoric can be a struggle for us today, but it is worthwhile and helpful especially as these texts do have theological content and aren't just some kind of expression of a Jews-suck we're-great attitude.)

>Among the leaders of this movement, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is the most notable.

Not really sure how this is true. Bonhoeffer had to be convinced by Catholics that tyrannicide is a viable option. He took the Protestant/Lutheran view that whoever was in power clearly had God's blessings, regardless of what that person did with their power. Read Church of Spies.

> For example, leaders like Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom (mid-late 4th century), who is regarded as a saint, preached with hatred and vitriol against his Jewish neighbors, blaming them for killing Christ. His sermons incited mob violence against Jews.

Here's a mention of a Catholic! This guy should read Robert Louis Wilken's John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality. That sort of historical carefulness is probably passé at a place like BU, but it's still necessary.

He would also do well to study Syriac Christianity and its close relationship with Jews. He likewise would do well to study Jewish anti-Christian works.

>As is the case with Christian anti-Semitism, Christian Islamophobia has deep roots. In the oldest Christian writings on Islam, St. John of Damascus' Against Heresies (8th century CE), Muhammad is presented as a heretic inspired by the devil; Islam itself is categorized as a Christian heresy.

To say that St. John of Damascus suffered from the modern "Islamophobia" is a bit odd. St. John's father worked for the Caliph. John lived under the Caliphate. And St. John provides reasoned responses to Islam. In his taxonomy of heresies, Islam shows up because he sees it as a corruption of Christian claims. It seems the author here has no conception of heresy. As long as someone says the name Jesus, they're a-okay in this guy's book (what is going on at BU's Theology department, I wonder).

>Tragically, this has been the dominant Christian assessment of Muhammad and Islam up until the present day,

No it isn't. Most people think of Islam as a totally new religion. This means it's no longer allowed to be critiqued as a heresy of Christianity, but now has to be given respect as its own thing.

>The foundation of Christian Islamophobia (fear of Islam) is a rejection of Muhammad as a spirit of error; the foundation of Christian Islamophilia (love of Islam) is an embrace of Muhammad as a spirit of truth. Jesus, in the Gospel of John, predicts the coming of a future prophet he calls "the spirit of truth":

Lord, have mercy. This guy - a Christian and a "theologian" - thinks Jesus Christ is speaking about Muhammad in St. John's Gospel.

>Today as Christians we have the opportunity to embrace Muhammad, the Qur'an, and Islam in an expression of faith in Jesus. This kind of embrace would have major political implications and would radically alter the quality of Christian-Muslim relations.

Abandon the Gospel and things will be well. Where else have we heard this?


This sort of vacuous liberal Christianity is so self-defeating I have a hard time seeing how anyone ever believes it. It's so intellectually dishonest. Nevertheless, I don't approve of anti-Muslim rhetoric and know that we have to treat Muslims with charity. But I don't have to throw out the Gospel to do that. In fact, it's only because of the Gospel I'm compelled to do it.

ITT: apologia for Luther that would never be extended to Catholics. It's always struck me as odd that Luther is contextualized, but if a Medieval Catholic failed, it's Catholicism's fault.

If anyone's interested in this in the Patristic world, Wilken's book is a must read.

Also check out Christopher Probst's Demonizing the Jews: Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany.

Have you read Robert Louis Wilken's John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century?