[B-Greek] IOUDAIOS and metonymy
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Sat Jan 31 14:40:22 EST 2004
Dear Iver,
I appreciate what you are trying to teach, but I think you may too quickly
dismiss Dmitri's suggestion.
>> > Jhn 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did
>> > not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews* sought to kill Him.
>> > NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson
>> > 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.
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.
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.
Third, by the time of the New Testament, the Romans had divided up
Palestine so that there was the province of Judea as well as other
provinces, including Galilee (Luke 3:1). And John came from Galilee.
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):
Matt. 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of
Jerusalem, saying,
Matt. 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for
they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mark 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath
Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.
Mark 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the
scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
Mark 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled,
that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
And Jerusalem (thus Judea) was understood to be the home of chief religious
leaders:
Matt. 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be
betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall
condemn him to death,
Mark 11:27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the
temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the
elders,
John 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and
Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
John 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
John 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was
baptizing.
Fifth, it is clear that the term Galileans has geographic meaning, so why
shouldn't the term Judeans?
John 4:45 Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him,
having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they
also went unto the feast.
Mark 14:70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by
said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean,
and thy speech agreeth thereto.
Luke 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the
Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
Luke 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these
Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered
such things?
A related thought is that the term Samaritans had geographical implications
in relation to Samaria:
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was
a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they
were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria,
except the apostles.
Luke 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and
when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
Luke 17:16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he
was a Samaritan.
John 8:48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that
thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
You develop the thought of metonymy below. Let me say that it is as easy
for the metonymy to work as Judean=religious leader as it is for the
metonymy to imply Jew=religious leader. It is still metonymy. The only way
that Jew=religious leader works is to understand the religious leaders as
the leaders of Israel, which they were. So the religious leaders act as the
representatives of the nation. They represent the Jews as a whole. But from
the perspective of a Galilean, John, who saw Jesus being persecuted by
authorities from the province of Judea, "Judeans" might indicate the
religious leaders who come from Judea. Those religious leaders represented
the religious viewpoint of the province of Judea. Jesus was in danger when
he was in Judea, and he was relatively safe outside of Judea. So "Judeans"
can represent the authorities of that province, who were endangering Jesus'
life. This is exactly the setting in which the terms are used in the verses
provided by Dmitri, John 7:1 and 11:7.
>Jesus accuses
>the proud Pharisees, and in John's gospel there is a very close connection
>between hOI IOUDAIOI and the Pharisees.
I think that is because a great many of them were from Judea.
>And no, I don't agree that IOUDAIOI in these two verses means Judeans, nor
>does any translation, or any commentary that I have been able to locate. It
>is not the Judean population in general that sought to kill Jesus, only the
>Jewish leaders, particularly the Pharisees and the high priestly family.
>Many of these lived in Jerusalem and its environs, but that is not the
>point, although it obviously meant that it was dangerous for Jesus to show
>himself in Jerusalem at this point in time.
HH: I don't see why they're being from Jerusalem and its environs cannot be
the point.
>> Why would John call leaders Jews? Don't you think it is rather
>> strange? Were not Galileans Jews? Were not apostles Jews? Was not
>> John a Jew?
>The strangeness is caused by a lack of familiarity with what is called
>metonymy where a word is used for the sake of brevity to stand for another,
>related concept.
HH: I think Dmitri's observation still stands. If "Jew"= "religious
leader," then it would be odd in the context of these verses cited by
Dmitri, because the disciples were also Jews. Why, in the middle of the
events, would they speak of the religious leaders as Jews when they
themselves were Jews? Especially is this the case when Jesus was safe
outside of Judea, but in danger of losing His life if He went to Judea.
>Other controversial and often misunderstood metonymies are "blood" for
>" (violent) death", "water" for "the water that precedes and announces the
>imminent birth of a child" in John 3:5 and 1 John 5:6, and TEKNOGONIA for
>"motherhood" in 1 Tim 2:15.
HH: I don't think the "water" metonymy is necessarily true for John 3:5 or
1 Jn 5:6 in the way that you propose, since it can be a synecdoche or
metonymy for baptism and cleansing. Since it is controversial, perhaps it
should be excluded. Anyway, your point is valid that there is metonymy.
>And it appears that it is now controversial also that the word "Jews" in
>John is normally used as a metonymy for those who are the "official,
>religious leaders of the Jews". Metonymies involving leadership are common
>in the bible.
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.
>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.
>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.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list