[B-Greek] IOUDAIOS and metonymy
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Feb 1 04:08:12 EST 2004
Dear Harold,
Thank you for your comments. It always helps to look at the various
possibilities in order to understand one another better. Let me comment on a
couple of things below:
>
> Jhn 11:7 Then after this He said to the disciples, "Let us go to
> Judea again."
> Jhn 11:8 The disciples said to Him, "Rabbi, lately the Jews
> sought to stone You, and are You going there again?"
> NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson
>
> >First, it is an incorrect conclusion from a limited context that the word
> >IOUDAIOI must mean Judeans, just because it comes after the word Judea.
>
> HH: I think in the second verse the argument is quite strong for
> "Judeans":
>
> 1) Let us go into IOUDAIA
> 2) The IOUDAIOI were seeking to stone you, and do you again seek
> to go there.
>
> The disciples closely associate the IOUDAIOI with IOUDAIA.
Yes, but that does not mean that the same Greek word cannot have two
different senses: Judean and Jewish, Judean referring to what pertains to
the geographical area of Judea and Jewish to what pertains to the people who
used to be called Israelites, the descendants of Jacob, regardless of where
they live.
As long as you allow for metonymy in the case of Judeans, then we are not so
far apart. What I am saying is that in these verses, the word does not refer
to all the Jews nor all the Judeans, but to the Jewish leaders who happened
to be concentrated in Jerusalem which happens to be in Judea. But if we
translate by "Judean leaders" we might imply that these leaders were only
considered leaders of the Jews who lived in Judea, and I don't think that it
is accurate.
It is helpful to track John's use of the word through his Gospel. Try it.
Also check all occurrences of FARISAIOI.
I don't have time or space to list and expound on the 71 occurrences of
IOUDAIOI, but it is important to start from the beginning of the gospel to
get the setting:
1:19 RSV: And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and
Levites from Jerusalem...
NET: Now this was John's testimony when the Jewish leaders (Footnote: Grk
"the Jews." In NT usage the term Ioudaioi may refer to the entire Jewish
people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the
authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus. Here
the author refers to the authorities or leaders in Jerusalem. (For further
information see R. G. Bratcher, "'The Jews' in the Gospel of John," BT 26
[1975]: 401-9) sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem...
Since this is the first usage of the metonym IOUDAIOI, it sets the sense
that the author is thinking of. John the Baptist was not only a Jew, but a
Judean. Still, the author refers to IOUDAIOI in a restricted sense that
excludes John the Baptist. We know from 1:24 and other places that the main
group the author is thinking of were the Pharisaic leaders in Jerusalem. (We
recently discussed John 1:24 on this list, which IMO should be translated as
the RSV did, clarifying that the Jewish leaders who sent the delegation were
indeed Pharisees.)
Next occurrence is 2:6 (2:13 is similar):
RSV: Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of
purification.
The author is writing primarily to non-Jews at a time after the Jews as a
people have again been forced into exile as a refugee nation. This is
important, because he looks at the Jews from a distance and at a time when
the nation no longer exists as a nation. Authors adjusts their terminology
to their audience, and this author would probably not have expressed himself
the same way had be been writing to Jews or had he been writing before the
fall of the nation.
Next 2:18:
RSV: The Jews then said to him..
NET: So then the Jewish leaders responded..
This is after Jesus had cleansed the Temple for the first time, and those
who questioned him must have been Jews in authority at the Temple. It cannot
refer to Judeans in general, but must be the religious authorities, here
probably including members of the high priestly family in addition to some
Pharisees.
Next 3:1:
RSV: Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
Jews...
Nicodemus is important for the author, partly because he is an exception to
the fact that the Pharisaic leaders were in opposition to Jesus and did not
believe.
Next 3:25: Now a discussion arose between John's disciples and a Jew over
purifying.
NET: Now a dispute came about between some of John's disciples and a Jew
concerning ceremonial washing. (Footnote on Jew: There is a textual problem
here: was the dispute between the Baptist's disciples and an individual Jew
(Ioudaiou) or representatives of the Jewish authorities (Ioudaiwn)? While
NA27 and UBS4 opt for the singular Ioudaiou as the more difficult reading,
there is good external support for the plural Ioudaiwn (p66 Aleph* Q f1 f13
565 it vg al). In the final analysis it does not make a great deal of
difference whether the dispute arose between the Baptist's disciples and a
single representative of the authorities or several.)
Because the dispute was over purification ceremonies, there is no doubt that
this or these "Jews" belonged to the Pharisees, and the fact that they
challenge the disciples of John, must mean that they were people in
authority. Again, it is unlikely that the author is thinking of "Judeans",
because John and at least some of his disciples were Judeans.
7:13:
RSV: Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him...
NET: However, no one spoke openly about him for fear of the Jewish
authorities.
This crowd of people refer to ordinary people in Jerusalem. Most of these
must have been Judeans. It makes no sense to think that IOUDAIOI here refers
to Judeans in general. Nor is it helpful IMO to substitute the
straightforward "Jewish authorities" with "Judean authorities".
The conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious authorities, represented
by Pharisees and the high priests is particularly intense in chapters 7 to
10. (The word FARISAIOI occurs 10 times here, and IOUDAIOI 18 times. 3 of
these refer to Jews in general - 7:2,15; 8:31. The rest refer to the Jewish
leaders. None to Judeans in general.)
As far as I can see, the only section where a reasonable case can be made
for the primary sense of IOUDAIOI to be Judeans is in 11:19-45, but the
context is not clear one way or the other.
When John wants to refer to Judea as opposed to Galilee, he either says THN
IOUDAIAN GHN as in 3:22 or with GHN implied simply IOUDAIA in the feminine
(4:3,47,54; 7:1,3, 11:7). If we take GALILAIA, the feminine form would refer
to the country and the masculine to a person from there. Here we have no
problem, because GALILAIOS does not have a wider sense like IOUDAIOS has. IF
one would want to refer to a Judean, one would have to say either IOUDAIOS
or a person from IOUDAIA (GH/CWRA). Now, because the normal sense in the NT
of IOUDAIOS is clearly Jew rather than Judean, there would be strong
pragmatic reasons to avoid the word when specifically referring to a Judean,
and use some other way of referring so such people. Examples are:
Mark 1:5 PASA hH IOUDAIA CWRA (a metonym)
Luke 23:51: IWSHF...APO ARIMAQAIAS POLEWS TWN IOUDAIWN
> There are several things to be said for this interpretation of IOUDAIOI as
> "Judeans" (a gloss given by the UBS dictionary), while keeping in mind the
> idea of metonymy. First, when the ten northern tribes went into captivity,
> Israel by-and-large consisted of Judeans. So Israelite=Judean was
> a natural development.
Yes, and that is why the same word in Greek came to be used for both Jewish
and Judean (both derived from Yudah).
> Second, when the land was repopulated after the Babylonian Captivity, it
> was largely repopulated by Judeans who had been captured by
> Nebuchadnezzar.
> So the equation of Judean=Israelite remained true. But, just as survivors
> from the northern tribes had migrated south during the time of
> Hezekiah and
> Josiah, so there would be returnees from the exile whose bloodlines
> originated in the other tribes. And they would most likely have settled in
> their ancestral homeland in the north as much as possible.
Which means that there were Jews living outside of Judea, so referring to
them as Judeans is misleading. In fact, a lot of them had settled in the
area of Betanea, about 20 kms east of Galilee. They were all Jews, and
mostly if not completely descended from the tribe of Judah, but they were
not Judeans, since they did not live in the province of Judea.
> Fourth, the NT often pictures the religious leaders that persecuted Jesus
> as being from Jerusalem and Judea, although one passage also mentions
> Pharisees from Galilee (Luke 5:17):
Which argues against your point. The primary point is that they were
Pharisees, and it is not particularly important whether they lived in
Jerusalem or not.
> HH: I don't necessarily deny that Jews=religious leaders, but I think that
> IOUDAIOS can have a more specific meaning, and that meaning is appropriate
> for John 7:1 and 11:7-8. When John looks back over the decades at the
> events of Jesus' life, perhaps writing from Ephesus, he can characterize
> the religious leaders as "the Jews," those representing that nation about
> whom is writing. But the disciples in the middle of the events were less
> likely to talk this way, I think. For they were Jews, and to call
> someone a Jew would not provide a very meaningful distinction.
That is probably correct, but IMO beside the point. John is writing from his
perspective adjusted to his audience, and it is likely that he restates what
was actually said. John 7:1 is a narrator comment, and whatever the
disciples said in 11:8 in Hebrew or Aramaic was rephrased by John in Greek
in order to communicate to his audience in Ephesos. In 11:7 I don't think
there is a clear distinction between Judeans and Jews, but in any case, the
reference is to the Jewish, Pharisaic leaders in Jerusalem.
>
> >So, in John 7:1 and 11:8 the word IOUDAIOI does not mean
> "Judeans" nor does
> >it mean "Jews" as one might expect from the literal version you quote. It
> >means what the NET and NLT say it means: "Jewish authorities".
>
> HH: "Judean authorities" seems a more relevant, specific understanding.
It is more ambiguous. If it is understood as Jewish authorities living in
Jerusalem, it is fine. But if it is understood as authorities over the
Judean population, it is incorrect. Therefore, it is simpler and less
ambiguous to say "Jewish authorities". I have no great problem with adding
"living in Jerusalem", but it is unneeded and would violent the principle of
optimal relevance.
> >Is being anti-Judean any better than anti-Jewish? Both sound like racist
> >tendencies to me, and both are misunderstandings of John's terminology as
> >commonly mistranslated in literal English versions.
>
> HH: There is no need to bring in a concept of anti-Judean. Jesus' life was
> threatened by the Judean authorities.
I did not bring in that concept, but was reacting against it.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list