A little bit ago, there was some discussion among biblioblogs regarding the identity of the Ἰουδαῖοι in early Jewish and Christian texts. The traditional translation of the term is “Jews,” but some scholars argue that “Judeans” would be more appropriate. Still others would like to emphasize that it refers to “Jewish authorities.” Such a translation issue is not as boring as it may sound. What is at stake is not simply the exchange of one word for another, but it becomes especially meaningful when we read some of the harsh comments made in the New Testament regarding these Jews/Judeans.

If we call these people “Jews,” perhaps we imagine a primarily religious identity, in which case NT texts may be [ab]used to say and do hateful things towards Jews today. If we call them “Judeans,” we emphasize the ethnic/national identity over the religious one. The sentiment here, I think, is to demonstrate that these conflicts from the NT were local. In other words, if we think of the Ἰουδαῖοι as “Judeans,” we should realize that there is no good parallel identity today. The “Judeans” of the first century are not to be identified with Jews around the world, nor those who reside in the modern state of Israel. I have not even mentioned the difficulty of making a parallel between the earliest followers of Jesus and Christians today. As I understand it, the logic behind the translation here is to make problematic statements about the “Judeans” stay trapped within their own time and space, imprisoning the words to avoid religious violence today and implicitly, to condemn the violence upon the Jews in the Holocaust.

I have been studying loads of Johannine things this quarter, simultaneously taking an exegesis class on the Gospel of John and a seminar on Johannine Theology. The question of the Ἰουδαῖοι is of course tremendously relevant to interpreting the Gospel of John. In all of the Synoptic Gospels combined, we find a total of 16 occurrences of Ἰουδαῖος, and only 5 of these outside the passion narratives. John uses the term a full 71 times within his Gospel. Clearly, there is something unique about the Johannine usage of Ἰουδαῖος.

One of the key usages of the term comes in the passion narratives of all four Gospels: Jesus is called “king of the _____.” Who is he allegedly a king over? Furthermore, do religions have kings? In John 18:35, Pilate refers to Jesus’ nation (τὸ ἔθνος), just as the attendants at the meeting of the council used the term in chapter 11 (vv. 48, 50, 51, 52). The use of ἔθνος in relation to the Ἰουδαῖοι, and the fact that they are thought to have a king (Josephus also calls Herod the “king of the Ἰουδαῖοι,” Ant. 16.311) are clear indicators that Ἰουδαῖοι must at least be understood as an ethnic term.

On the other hand, there is undoubtedly a religious element to the identity of the Ἰουδαῖοι as well. The leaders of this “nation” are priests and Pharisees (John 11), religious leaders. At the center of this nation’s economic activity is a central Jerusalem temple (2:13-22), at which the Ἰουδαῖοι worship (4:20) and celebrate religious festivals (5:1). It seems difficult to deny the religious identity of the Ἰουδαῖοι seen in their leadership, customs, and central temple. It seems to me, then, that the Ἰουδαῖοι are both “Judeans,” in an ethnic sense, and “Jews,” in a religious sense. Do we need to choose one or the other?

I am less inclined towards “Jewish authorities” because it does not always appear to be referring to the authorities. Note, for example, the great crowd of Ἰουδαῖοι in 12:9-11. Or Jesus’ statement that salvation is from the Ἰουδαῖοι (4:22). On the other hand, I’m not against recognizing that the term does refer only to authorities at times, such as the Ἰουδαῖοι who had come to an agreement in 9:22 to throw out from the synagogue those who confess Jesus as the Messiah.

The tricky part is when we get beyond the merely descriptive endeavor and into the Johannine symbolic meaning of the term. For John, the Ἰουδαῖοι come to represent those people who reject Jesus’ message. Of the Ἰουδαῖοι in Jerusalem present at his temple action, there are many who believe Jesus (2:23), but these are not trusted by Jesus (2:24). Soon we see more explicit animosity from the Ἰουδαῖοι towards Jesus, who seek to kill him (5:16, 18; 7:1). In fact, the people feared speaking in favor of Jesus because of the animosity of the Ἰουδαῖοι (7:13; 9:22). In the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, then, the irony is that Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the people who have rejected his message. We are reminded of John’s prologue: “He came to his own and his own did not receive him” (1:11).

This negative symbolism is deeply troubling. Either way you translate it, we have a negative attitude towards either a nation (Judeans) or a religion (Jews) or simply a religious nation/national religion. I would like to ignore the problem by emphasizing that this is an intragroup conflict. Jesus is a Ἰουδαῖος. Most of his earliest followers were Ἰουδαῖοι. And yet the larger group of those who may be identified as Ἰουδαῖοι did not accept his message and mission. It seems fitting to reserve the title Ἰουδαῖοι for the majority group. I think this is another point we need to acknowledge. The Jews/Judeans of the first
century may have been a minority within the Roman Empire, but the earliest followers of Jesus were a minority within that minority. These statements from John are negative comments about a majority from the perspective of what we might call a minoritized group, a status that contemporary Western Christianity can hardly claim.

In the end, I don’t think any of this takes away the problem of what history has done with negative New Testament texts about the Jews/Judeans and how we are supposed to interpret it today. For me, I just have to chalk it up to the baffling difference in historical and cultural situation. We have to simply realize that we cannot draw an easy and direct line between the groups of people seen in the New Testament and any groups that may still be around today with the same names.

For more from biblioblogs see: Phil Harland, Michael Bird, Loren Rosson, or some older posts from Chris Weimer, Loren Rosson again, Mark Owens (and here), Peter Kirk, and Jim Davila.