Who Were The Ioudaioi

Who Were the ?
Author(s): Malcolm Lowe

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 18, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 101-130
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560764 .
Accessed: 13/09/2014 00:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 13 Sep 2014 00:46:03 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Novum
Testamentum,
Vol.
XVIII, fasc.
2
WHO WERE THE IOTAAIOI ?
BY
MALCOLM LOWE
Van Leer
Foundation,
Jerusalem
The
meaning
of the word
'IouSoc"oL
in
John's Gospel
has
long
been a
puzzle. Although virtually
all modern translations render
it
"Jews",
almost the
only point
of
agreement
between com-
mentators is that this cannot in
general
be its
meaning. Occasionally
it has been
conjectured
that it means
"Judeans",
i.e. that it has a
territorial rather than a
merely religious
denotation,
and this is
recognised
in the Revised Standard Version
(RSV)
to the extent
that "or
Judeans"
is
given
as an alternative in a note to
Jn
vii
I.
Sometimes it is
suggested
that it refers to the
Pharisees,
or more
specifically
to those
Jews
who
rejected Jesus 1).
It has even been
proposed
that the term must be some
symbolic
mode of reference
to the wicked of this world
(or something
of the
kind),
so that it
does not
essentially
refer to the
Jews
at all
2).
Commentators tend either to force one of these
meanings upon
every
occurrence of the
word,
or to use a mixture of different
possibilities
without
attempting
to establish
any systematic
con-
nexion between the
variety
of
meanings proposed.
In neither case
is the result
convincing 3).
1)
E. L.
ALLEN,
"The
Jewish
Christian Church in the Fourth
Gospel", JBL,
74 (1955), 88-92,
thinks that "the
Jews"
means the leaders of the
Jewish
community,
but as
representing
the
majority
who
rejected Jesus (yet
not
the
minority
who
accepted him).
C. K.
BARRETT,
The
Gospel according
to
St.
John
(I955),
thinks it means
"Judaism
and its official leaders" whose
headquarters
were in
Jerusalem (p. 143),
but
alleges: "John speaks
in-
discriminately
of 'the
Jews'
and 'the
Pharisees',
probably
with no clear know-
ledge
of conditions in Palestine before A.D.
70o"
(p. 299).
2)
Thus E.
GRASSER,
"Die
antijiidische
Polemik im
Johannesevangelium",
NTS XI
(1964-5), speaks
of
"ein
in der
Auslegung
des vierten
Evangeliums
unbestrittener
Tatbestand,
nimlich die
Synonymitlt
der
Begriffe
'Iou8sioq
and
x60aEo,"
(p. 88),
and sums
up (p. 89):
"Ein
Paradigma
also
fiir
die Offen-
barung
als Krisis-so
k6nnten
wir die
Auseinandersetzung Jesu
mit den
Juden
umschreiben. Denn
'Iou8Gaoq
und
x6ayoo0
sind in
gleicher
Weise
Chiffren
fiir
den
Unglauben
schlechthin."
3)
R. BULTMANN
applies
the
symbolic interpretation systematically
in
Das
Evangelium
des
Johannes (IIth ed.,
1950):
"Das
fiir
den
Evangelisten
102 MALCOLM LOWE
This
paper
aims to show that the
puzzles
and confusion are due
not to
any peculiarities
of
usage
of the author of
John's Gospel,
but
simply
to our distance from the
period
about which he wrote.
It first
explains, by
a
systematic
semantic
analysis,
what
variety
of
meanings might
be
anticipated
for the word
'Iou80-Xo (and
its
Semitic
equivalents)
in the natural
everyday usage
of Palestine in
the
period
of
Jesus.
Then it shows that all uses of the word in the
four
gospels
are instances of one or another of these various mean-
ings.
It also establishes which
meanings predominate
and
why.
SEMANTICS AND HISTORY
The word
'Iou80co0
is related to the word
'Io368 (Judah)
and
even more
closely
to
'Iousaox
(Judea),
since the latter is
merely
its
feminine
singular. Something
similar holds for its Semitic
equivalents.
On the other
hand,
today
its
only meaning
is "members
of the
Jewish religion" (and
the word
ta'trm
in modern Hebrew
likewise has no territorial
connotation).
We
may
thus
presuppose
three basic
meanings
of the word:
(a)
"members of the tribe of
Judah"
as
opposed
to members of
other
tribes;
charakteristische
o0
'Iou8xotL
fasst die
Juden
in ihrer Gesamtheit
zusammen,
so wie sie als Vertreter des
Unglaubens (und
damit ... der
ungliubigen
'Welt'
iiberhaupt)
vom christlichen Glauben aus
gesehen
werden."
(p. 59).
He adds that on
occasion, however,
the
representatives
of unbelief are not
the
people
in
general
but the latter's
spokesmen.
C. H.
DODD, Historical Tradition
in the
Fourth
Gospel, (1963), p. 242, says
that the term is used
"imprecisely"
to mean
usually
the
general body
of the
Jewish people
or the
Jewish
authorities in
Jerusalem, though
sometimes
apparently
the inhabitants of
Judea,
but that it
anyway always
seems to
mean the enemies
(or potential enemies)
of Christ.
According
to R. E.
BROWN,
Anchor Bible,
vol.
29
(1966), p.
LXXI,
the term
normally
means the
religious
authorities hostile to
Jesus,
but means
Jews
in
general
in reference to national
and
religious
customs
(&op-7 ~7v 'Iousalco, etc.)
or when
Jesus speaks
to
foreig-
ners,
while in a few occurrences
(possibly
in later
insertions)
it means
Judeans.
Yet
I.
H.
BERNARD,
The
Gospel according
to St.
John (1928),
vol.
I, pp. 34-35,
thought
it
usually
meant
Judeans
and
especially Jerusalemites,
but
Jews
in
general
as
regards
social and
religious customs,
sometimes
(by equating
Jn
i
19
and
24)
the Pharisees as the
popular
leaders of the
Jews,
and once
(Jn
vi
41, 52)
Galileans who are
perhaps "Jews" by religious
conviction.
None of these
proponents
of a
variety
of
meanings explains
how such a
variety might
arise
(since
to cite
supposedly
distinct sources
only postpones
solution of the
problem,
as it
may
then be asked
why precisely
that
variety
occurs in the various
sources).
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI? 0I3
(b) "Judeans"
as
opposed
to
people living
in
(or originating
from)
other
areas
4) (notably
both
Galileans
and
Samaritans,
if
Judea
is understood in the strict sense
5)
of the area west
of the
Jordan
between Samaria and
Idumea);
(c) "Jews"
as
opposed
to members of other
religions (notably
Samaritans, Romans,
Greeks).
At the same time
'Iousco
need not
always
mean
"Judea
in the
strict sense"
(as just defined),
since it was used as an official title
of
larger
administrative units
6).
Thus
'Ious~doL
in a
purely geo-
graphical
sense could
conceivably
mean
simply
the inhabitants of
the
province
or
kingdom
of
Judea,
wherever its boundaries
hap-
pened
to lie
7).
For the time of
Jesus,
three relevant
possible
senses
of
'Iouaoca
may
be
anticipated:
(I)
Judea
in the strict
sense;
(2)
the
procurate
of Pontius Pilate
(i.e. Judea
as above
together
with
Idumea
and
Samaria);
(3)
the
kingdom
of Herod the Great and the last Hasmoneans
(i.e. approximately
the whole of the historic Land of
Israel) 8).
The
corresponding meanings
of
'IousacoL
may
be
designated
as
(bI),
(b2)
and
(b3) 9).
We
cannot, however,
adequately
examine the
meanings
of
'Iou8aXo
and
'
'Iou8oaoc
without also
considering
the word
'Iap
'?%,
which occurs
widely
in the
gospels
in the
meanings
"the
People
of
Israel"
(i.e.
the
Jews,
sometimes as
olxoq
'Iapa
?)
and "the Land
of Israel"
(in
Mt ii 21 as
yl
'Iapa~x).
In other
words,
this is a
possible
4)
The earliest occurrence of a
geographical
sense is II Ki xvi 6
(for
"men
of
Judah"
as
opposed
to the inhabitants of the
kingdom
of
Israel).
Note also
II
Ki
xviii 26,
28
(as
Is xxxvi
II,
13);
here
r'T1~~ (Sept.
'Iouatazr)
means
"the
language
of
Judah".
6)
The
Judea
of the
pre-Hasmonean period
was even smaller than
this,
not
e.g. reaching
to the sea.
6)
The
"Iudaea provincia"
of
e.g. Tacitus,
Ann.
II, 42.
7)
This seems to be the
explanation
of
Tacitus,
Ann.
XII,
54;
here the
"Galilaeorum natio" and the "Samaritae" are referred to
collectively
as
"Iudaei",
apparently
because
they
were all
living
in
"Iudaea".
8)
The occurrence of the same name for different areas in the same
period
(and
even the same
writer)
should not cause
surprise: today "England"
is
often used for "Britain" and "Holland" for "the
Netherlands",
although
they
are
strictly parts
of those wholes.
9)
In what
follows,
for
simplicity, "Judeans"
without
qualification
will
normally
mean
Judeans
in the strict sense
(bi).
104
MALCOLM LOWE
rival to both in their widest senses. It could itself also
conceivably
refer on occasion to the ancient northern
kingdom,
or to the rem-
nants of the northern tribes
10).
Now of the
possible meanings
of
'IouacoL,
the strict
geographical
sense
(bI)
would have much relevance for
Jews
in Palestine but
almost none for those in the
Diaspora,
while
exactly
the reverse is
true for the
religious meaning (c).
In
fact,
even well before the
New Testament
period Diaspora Jews began
to
accept
the name
oi
'Iou tZoL
in
place
of
'IJpa-X
11),
whereas the latter
persisted long
enough
in Palestine to be
virtually
the
only
self-name of the
Jews
in the Mishna
(c. 200 A.D.) 12).
It should not be
thought,
however,
that the
geographical
senses
of
'IouOZoL
quickly
died
out,
since
they
are
clearly
attested
by
Josephus.
He uses the word to mean:
i) "Judeans",
sometimes in
the strict sense and sometimes in that of inhabitants of the
province
of
Judea; ii) "Jews"
whenever there is a need to
distinguish
between
Jews
and Gentiles
(thus always
for
Jews
in the
Diaspora);
moreover
he even uses the word in
different
senses in the same
passage,
supposing
that the reader can
easily guess
the correct sense from
10)
Lk ii
36 says
that Anna the
prophetess belonged
to Asher. In Susanna
(or
Daniel
xiii) 'IJpa?X
occurs in both wider and narrower senses: Susanna is
described first as a
daughter
of Israel
(Sus 48),
but then as not a
daughter
of Israel but a
daughter
of
Judah (Sus 57).
11)
A difference between Palestinian
Jewish
and
Diaspora Jewish usage
seems to be
already
attested in differences between I and II Maccabees. Thus
the relevant
section,
by
K. G.
KUHN,
in the article on
'Iapoc)
in vol. III
(ed.
G.
KITTEL)
of the
Theologisches
Warterbuch
des Neuen Testaments
(pp. 360-366,
see
esp. p. 362) suggests
that the latter book uses
'Iou80CotL
freely
as a name for the
Judeans
in all
contexts,
but that the former book
uses
'Ia
pocX
in
religious-national
contexts and
'Iousakot
in civil-administra-
ative ones
(parallelling
*71Tfl7
on their
coins).
In other
words,
'Iapocrp
is
used in
place
of
'Ious8cot
in sense
(c),
so that the latter has
normally only
sense
(bI).
Even in I
Maccabees, however,
non-Jews
are
represented
as
using
only 'Iou8otot.
(W. GUTBROD's
section on the
gospels
in the same article
fails to notice the relevance of this situation for the later
period.)
Esther
too
(e.g.
ii
5)
uses
(0)"'7*1
to mean
"Jew(s)".
12)
In the Mishna
?It'V
is the common
rendering
of "the
Jews"
and also
of
"Jews" (Hallah 4.7., etc.)
and "a
Jew" (Berachoth
8.8,
etc.
etc.).
There is
also
WDI'?W
(Erubin
6.i,
Abodah Zarah
4.11).
V111'1 occurs at Nedarim
I 1.12 in a
possibly stereotyped saying.
Otherwise
"T''r
occurs
only
in the
quotation
of Esther ii
5
at
Megillah 2.3.
Sometimes
WVtZ'
means "an
ordinary
Jew"
as
opposed
to
priests (Terumoth
I1.9,
Pesahim
7.3, etc.)
or to
priests
and Levites
(Taanith 4.2, etc.);
also
lt"r'
(Peah
8.6,
Taanith
4.2, etc.).
Wt
'WV '
(as
"the Land of Israel" contrasted
e.g.
with
Syria,
Baba Kamma
7.7.)
also occurs
widely
as a standard term still used
e.g. by
Rabbi Akiba
(Shebiith 6.2;
compare
Yebamoth
16.7).
WHO WERE THE
IOrAAIOI
?
I05
the context. There are
especially
two kinds of
passage
in which a
geographical meaning
can be
recognized: (i)
ones in which ot
'IousMLoL
and I
'IoustL
occur
together
in such a
way
that the
former are
precisely
the inhabitants of the latter
13); (2)
ones in
which
'Iousc'to
are contrasted with
Jews
from other areas of Pales-
tine
(as
raochLoL,
etc.) 14).
The
meaning "Judeans" (in
some
sense)
should thus be considered a
likely possibility
whenever
Josephus
talks of
'IouscL-noL
in a Palestinian context
15), especially
as he has
no other
single
word for the inhabitants of
Judea
or Palestine
16).
Even as late as the
early
third
century,
Dio Cassius
explicitly
distinguishes
between a
geographical
and a
religious meaning
of
'Iou8sooL;
moreover he treats the former as the basic sense
17).
That the
geographical
senses of
'IouAsXor
,
far from
having
died
out,
indeed formed the
primary meaning
of the term in New Testa-
ment
times,
is confirmed
by
the
surprising,
but
well-attested,
belief
that the
'IousmcoO
were certain
Egyptians
or Indians who had
13)
An
example
is
J.Ant. XVIII,
2.
Coponius
and
Quirinius
are here said
to have arrived in
ihv 'Iouxda~
(or
`yv
'Iouoov;
in
any
case
Judea
in sense
(2)
is
intended),
the former to rule over the
'IousooL
and the latter to
evaluate their
property
for taxation. Here it is
precisely
the inhabitants of
the
procurate (presumably
Samaritans as well as
Jews)
who were to be ruled
and
taxed,
i.e. ot
'Iou8saoL
in
meaning (b2).
14)
An instructive
example
is
J.
Ant.
XVII, 254
ff.
Josephus
states first
that
many
Galileans,
Idumeans and
people
from
Jericho
and Perea had come
to
Jerusalem
to celebrate
Pentecost,
where
they
were
joined by
ohol
'Iousa80oL.
Since all had come to a
Jewish
festival,
and the
Jewish
areas of
Palestine were
precisely
Galilee, Perea,
Judea
and
Idumea, hoL
'Iou8sozot
here
indisputably signifies
the
Judeans
in the strict sense
(bI).
Yet later in the
same
passage
he relates how the Romans attacked the
'Iouso'ot,
now
meaning
the whole
crowd,
i.e. he has switched to
meaning (b3)
or
possibly-as
it is
Jews
vs.
Gentiles-meaning (c).
15)
Some
plausible
instances are
J.
Ant.
XVIII, 89
and
Life 346
and
391
('Iouso0ot
and
Pcao toL
apparently being
contrasted: in the
Life
the Galilean
Jews
are almost
invariably
oL
rocr;LocoL;
note also
Against Apion I, 48:
"those
whom we call
rocxaLaoL").
16)
Unlike I Maccabees and the
Mishna, 'Iapao
X
does not occur
throughout
as a name for the
Jews
and their land. The
explanation
is that
although
a
Palestinian
Jew,
he was
explicitly writing
for Gentiles
ignorant
of the
Jews
(J.
Ant.
I, 5-13),
which
implies
that the
geographical meanings
of
'Iou80c"ot
were familiar to literate
speakers
of Greek in
general.
17)
At R. Hist.
XXXVII, xvi.5-xvii.I
he
says
of Palestine that the area
and its inhabitants are also called 'Iou8m0m and
'Iou8matot;
then he adds that
the latter name is also
applied
to all
else,
even of other nations
(&X;XoeOvez),
who adhere to their customs
(r&
v6tuLLo
orc~-ov,
i.e. those of the
'IousxZoL
in
the
geographical sense).
Thus he
distinguishes
between our
meanings (b3)
and
(c), regarding
the latter as derived
from
the former.
Note also
XLVII, xxviii.3-4:
ot
'Iouso&0oL
as inhabitants of 7
'Iou8soc.
Io6 MALCOLM LOWE
obtained their current name
by emigrating
to the
already existing
country
of
Judea.
In
Against Apion Josephus
makes
extraordinary
efforts to refute
charges
that the
'Iou8mZoL
were
merely Egyptians
who had been driven out of their own
country
into
Judea (II,
8;
compare
I,
252) 18);
he also relates that
Aristotle,
according
to the
latter's
pupil
Clearchus,
believed the
'Ioua'ZoL
to be Indian
philos-
ophers
who had come to
Judea
and taken their
(new)
name
from
that
place (I, 179:
o6vota Xoc6v
&res ~n
705
T6=ou).
Some awareness of the connection with the tribe of
Judah
nonetheless continued. Thus
Pompeius Trogus,
Hist. Phil.
XXXVI,
ii.I-5 (in Justinus' epitome), says
that the
Iudaei originate
from
Damascus,
where Abraham and Israel were
successively king;
the
latter divided his
people
into ten
kingdoms,
one to each of his
sons,
but
then,
on the
premature
death of
Judah, gave
them all the name
Iudaei
in his
memory. Josephus
states
(J.
Ant.
XI, 173)-probably
again trying
to combat
misconceptions-that
the
people
and the
land
(i.e. o0
'Iou~aoZo
and
"
'Iouam21)
had
got
their current name
because
Judah
was the first tribe to return from exile. The Gemara
of the Talmud at
Megillah
i2b-I3a
seems still to be well aware of
the connexion
19).
Even in the ninth
century
Isho'dad of
Merv
repeats Josephus' story
about the return from exile in a more
elaborate form
(perhaps deriving
from a common source rather
than from
Josephus himself) 20).
But the
general picture
for the New Testament
period
is that the
primary meaning
of
'IouasOcoL
was
geographical (in
a sense which
18) Compare
Strabo,
Geography
XVI,
ii.34-6: they
were certain
Egyptians
who first discarded the
Egyptian religion (at
the
urging
of the
"Egyptian
priest" Moses!)
and then left
Egypt
to become those now called
'Iou8acoL (34).
Against Apion
discusses similar tales in numerous Gentile authors.
Despite
Josephus'
efforts,
Celsus
(acc.
to
Origen, Against
Celsus
III,
5)
could still
claim that the
'Ioua'toL
were 'ALty6rTLoL )
p
yVel.
19)
Puzzlement is
espressed
over whether Mordechai
belonged
to
Judah
or to
Benjamin (in
Esther ii
5
he is
successively
described as
f'11Vl t
and
"2
I
R).
Then
preposterous explanations
are offered of how he could
belong
to both tribes at
once;
these are
probably
learned
jokes, presuming
awareness that
f'1l~l might
in
principle
have
meaning (a)
instead of
meaning
(c). (Humorous
commentaries on Esther are a
Jewish tradition.)
Note that
in the Mishna
Tiflf
means the tribe of
Judah
at Sotah 8.1 and
WTi 2
a
member of the tribe at Taanith
4.5.
20)
Commentaries
(Syriac
and
English),
ed. and tr. M. D.
GIBSON, vol.
V
(I916),
pt.
I,
pp. 6-7.
See also the article
(in Hebrew) by
S.
PINES
in the
Yacakov Friedmann memorial volume
(Jerusalem, 1974), p.
212. The
present
paper incorporates points suggested by
Professor
PINES
in a number of
discussions.
WHO WERE THE
IOrAAIOI?
IO7
might
be broader or narrower
according
to
speaker
and to
context).
In
addition,
amongst
Gentiles and
Diaspora Jews
the word had
already
a
secondary religious meaning,
whereas Palestinian
Jews
used
'IapohX
as a self-name.
The
divergence
between
Diaspora
and Palestinian
Jewish usage
leads us to divide the New Testament
writings
themselves into
two
groups:
the
gospels (since only
the other
gospels
are
comparable
with
John's Gospel
in
dealing exclusively
with events in
Palestine)
and the remainder
(which largely
concerns events in the
Diaspora).
The
present investigation
will therefore seek to determine the
meanings
of
o0
'Iou)oTL, 'Iousaoco
and
'Iapa~h
in the four
gospels.
So far three basic
meanings
of
'IousioL
have been
distinguished.
But a
greater variety
is
possible,
since
any nationality-word
has a
variety
of
stronger
and weaker senses. If we consider the word
"French" in modern
usage,
then in the strictest sense a Frenchman
is someone of French descent who lives in
France,
is a French
citizen and
speaks
French. But we
may
also call someone "French"
in a weaker sense if he is
only
some of these
things (French
Cana-
dians,
naturalized
Frenchmen,
children who
happened
to be born
to tourists in
France,
Bretons).
We also
commonly speak
of "the
French" to mean the French
government
or its
representatives
(when they sign
an
agreement
with "the
Russians"),
or the French
authorities
(when
"the French"
put
a tourist on trial for a
motoring
offence).
All three basic
meanings
of
'IouacloL may
be
expected
to show
comparable
ramifications of
meaning.
But the three basic
meanings
are also themselves
closely
connected:
Judea
was
(originally)
roughly
the historical
territory
of the tribe of
Judah,
while even
non-Judean Jews
were at least members of the
religion
of
Judea.
The latter
point
can be
appreciated by recalling
two facts.
Firstly,
in the ancient Mediterranean world almost
every people
had its
own national
religion,
so that to be a member of that
religion
was
in a sense to have that
nationality 21). Secondly,
as far as the
21)
This was for instance manifested in the
way
in which
conquering peoples
tended to
impose
some
part
of their
religion upon conquered peoples. (The
Jews
suffered
especially
from this
tendency,
and
yet
the Hasmonean con-
querers
themselves also followed
it.)
As Cicero
puts
it,
in
contrasting
the
Romans and the
recently conquered Iudaei (Pro
Flacco,
69):
"Sua
cuique
civitati
religio, Laeli, est,
nostra nobis."
Io8 MALCOLM LOWE
Gentiles were concerned
Judaism
was
primarily
the
religion
of
Judea 22).
Indeed,
for a
long
time
Judaism
was the
religion merely
of
Judea
in the strict
sense,
namely during
the centuries from the
fall of the northern
kingdom
to the rise of the Hasmoneans
(and
of
course the
religion
was
peculiarly
centered
upon
a
single temple
in
Judea) 23).
The
Jews
themselves, however,
never ceased to consider
that theirs was the true
religion
of the whole Land of Israel
24).
So there is a natural wide
variety
of
possible meanings
for
'Iou80)oL
in the Palestine of
Jesus'
time,
while
yet
all these
meanings
are
systematically
interrelated.
Yet it is not
enough
to list various
meanings;
a historical dimen-
sion must be added. For somehow the word
'IoukcZot
developed
in
meaning
from a
stage
in which it had
only
senses
(a)
and
(bI)
to
a
stage
in which it had
only
sense
(c).
I
suspect
that two
periods
were decisive in the course of this
development.
The first was the
period
about a
century
before the birth of
Jesus
when the Has-
moneans
expanded
from ancient
Judea
to
conquer
almost the
whole Land of Israel. As each new area was
annexed,
its inhabitants
were
given
the choice of
leaving
or
converting
to
Judaism (which
many did).
So
by
the time of
Jesus
there was a situation in which
22)
Thus when Suetonius
says (Tib. XXXVI)
that in Rome Tiberius
abolished "externas
caerimonias,
Aegyptios Iudaicosque
ritus",
presumably
"Iudaicus"
no less than
"Aegyptius"
includes a reference to a
specific country
(especially
as
e.g.
at
Vesp.
VI, 3
"Iudaicus
exercitus" means the Roman
army
in
Judea); similarly
Tacitus on this affair
(Ann.
II, lxxxv:
sacris
Aegyptiis Iudaicisque).
Valerius Maximus
(Fact.
et Dict. Mem.
I, iii.
3)
reports
the earlier
(139 B.C.) expulsion by
the
praetor
Cornelius of
Iudaei
("repetere
domos suas
coegit"
acc. to Paris'
epitome)
to
stop
their
prose-
lytising.
Moreover,
Dio Cassius
(loc. cit.)
in effect
says
that
'Iou8MZto
in the
religious
sense are those of
any
nation
(even
&koe0sve,)
who
practice
the
customs of the
people (i.e. Ovoq)
of
Judea (in
his sense of the
latter). Compare
also Cicero in the
preceding
note. One
may
well
wonder whether
in the
period
of
Cicero-or
even
Josephus-"Iudaeus"
was
any
more
a
religious
term
than
"Romanus", "Aegyptius",
etc.
23)
Even a
century
after the Hasmonean
conquests,
Strabo
(Geography
XVI,
ii) recognises
them with reluctance: he defines
'Iou8al
as the area
between Phoenicia
(i.e.
the Palestinian
coastland)
and Arabia from Gaza to
Antilebanon
(ii.21),
but
goes
on to
say
that most of this land was robbed
from Phoenicia and
Syria,
as the
'Ioukxtot
had
originally
settled around
Jerusalem (ii.35-7).
24)
Which
explains why
the
Judeans
of I Maccabees called themselves
'Iou8dxot
as citizens of the
ethnarchy
of
Judea (or people
of
Judean origin),
but
'Iapa-X
as a
national-religious entity.
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI?
IO9
(for
the first
time)
the word
'Iouscaio
in its
application
to
Palestine25)
would
apply
to
very
different
ranges
of
people
in senses
(bI)
and
(c).
Nor need the extension of the word to have
meaning (b3)
or
(c)
have been immediate in Palestine
itself,
as the term
(oIxoq) 'Iopoc'X
was
already
available to mean "the
Jews"
and remained in use
there until much later.
Moreover,
even when
non-Judean
converts
began
to call themselves
'IouaaoL
the word would
probably
have
retained a connotation of
Judea
in the strict
sense,
since
they
had
(in
the sense
explained)
become members of the
religion of
the
latter area.
The second decisive
period
would be the
period
of
persecutions
following
the Bar-Kochba
revolt,
whose result was to eliminate or
expel
most of the
Jewish population
of
Judea.
Thenceforth the
Palestinian centre of
Judaism
was
Galilee,
so that the word
'IouatoL
would much less
frequently
need to be used in sense
(bi). Eventually
this sense would die out
(since
it was no
longer required
in Palestine
or in the
Diaspora). Possibly
there was then an intermediate
stage
in which the broader
geographical
sense
(b3)--'IouaoL
meaning
"inhabitants
of
Palestine"-continued
to survive
26). Ultimately,
as Palestine
gradually
ceased to be looked
upon
as the home of an
?0vo L6v 'Ioutcov
27), only
the
religious
sense
(c)
would remain
28).
Thus semantics and
history provide
an extensive
range
of
possible
everyday
uses of
'Iou~axoL
in Palestine in
Jesus'
time. What is
therefore
required
is an examination of all occurrences of the word
in the
gospels
to see which of the
possibilities
is most
probably
involved in each case. The remainder of this
paper presents
the
25)
There were scattered
Jewish
communities in Palestine outside
Judea
in
pre-Hasmonean
times,
but not on the scale
produced by
Hasmonean
policy.
See
e.g.
World
History of
the
Jewish People,
vol. VI
(1962),
ch. 6
(by
M.
AvI-J ONAH).
A
major problem
is the extent to which these communities
were evacuated to
Judea by
Simon and
Judas
Maccabeus
(I
Maccabees
v
23, 45),
and in
particular
the
corresponding
extent of forced conversion in
Galilee after its
reconquest (an
event skimmed over
by Josephus).
26)
Yet
Palestinian
Jews
could still
speak
of
Judea
in the old strict sense
even in the time of Dio
Cassius;
see
e.g.
Pesahim
4.5,
Erubin
53
a. Con-
ceivably,
however,
these documents-which aim to
provide
a definitive
picture
of an earlier
period-are
also somewhat archaic in
terminology.
27)
As I Maccabees
viii
25,
etc.
28) Perhaps
connected with this is the
fact,
noted
by
T. REINACH
(Textes
relatifs
au
judaisme, p. 158,
n.
2;
a number of the
passages quoted
above
from ancient authors occur in this
collection),
that from the 2nd
century
onwards
'EppatioL
frequently replaces
'Iou8stior
in Greek authors.
IIO MALCOLM LOWE
results of such a
survey
in
systematic
form
(but starting
with
'lapa~X
and
1
'Iousoat).
We shall see that the
everyday meanings
suffice,
so that there is
no need to see in
John's Gospel
some fantastic
allegorical meaning
of the word
(though
its author
may
have intended to
convey
an
allegorical message too).
ISRAEL
As a
start,
the
meaning
of this term
may
be determined. Here
Matthew's
Gospel
is
especially helpful:
it defines the term
clearly
in
respect
both of area and of
people,
since
Joseph
went to Galilee
when told in dreams to
go
to
y-
'Iapa~X
but not to
go
to
Judea
(Mt
ii
I9-23),
while
Jesus
told his
disciples
to
go
neither to Samari-
tans nor to Gentiles but
only
to the lost
sheep
of
o~xoq
'IapocX
(Mt
x
5-6).
In other
words,
'IcpacxX
means here the whole Land of
Israel
(including Judea
as well as the ancient northern
kingdom)
or
precisely
the
Jews (as opposed
to Samaritans and
Gentiles).
The word occurs
widely
in one or other of these two senses in
Matthew and
Luke,
though
other
possible meanings
cannot
always
be so
decisively
excluded,
and twice in Mark
29).
Particular care is needed in
examining
the occurrences in
John's
Gospel
in view of its
suggested
Samaritan
origin 30).
There is no
evidence, however,
of
any
deviation from the
meanings
of
'IpapcX
defined in Matthew. Thus when
Jesus
is said to have been
greeted
as
"King
of Israel" on
entering Jerusalem (Jn
xii
13),
the reference
is
certainly
to the whole Land of Israel and not
merely
the ancient
northern
kingdom.
For
firstly
the crowd is said to have come to
Jerusalem
for the Passover
(Jn
xii
12),
thus
they
subscribed to
29)
See Mt ii
6,
viii
10,
ix
33,
x
23,
xv
24, 31,
xix
28, xxvii 42;
Lk i
16,
54,
68,
80o,
ii
25, 32, 34,
iv
25, 27,
Vii
9,
xxii
30,
xxiv
21
(also
olxoq
'Iaxc4p,
Lk i
33).
In Luke the context is often
Judean, ruling
out the
possibility
that
merely
the northern area is involved. Some of these occurrences are rather
poetical,
but a sufficient number are not. Note also Lk xvii
15-18: Jesus
called the
Samaritan a
"foreigner"
(&XXoyev+q).
Mark has
only
LU?ae6
'Japx
at
xv
32 (parallelling
Mt xxvii
42)
and a
quotation
of
'W
7VW at xii
29.
The Mishna too
distinguishes
"Israel" from the "Cuthites"
(i.e.
Samaritans;
see Berachoth
8.8,
Nedarim
3.1o).
30)
See G. W.
BUCHANAN,
"The Samaritan
Origin
of the
Gospel
of
John"
in
the
Goodenough
memorial volume
Religions
in
Antiquity (ed. NEUSNER).
The
present paper
does not
essentially
conflict with the thesis of a Samaritan
origin,
nor does it
presuppose
such an
origin
for
John's Gospel. (Its
format,
however,
owes a considerable debt to advice from Professor
BUCHANAN.)
WHO WERE THE IOTAAIOI? III
the wider sense of
Israel;
secondly they
came out to welcome him
on account of what
they
had heard from the
'Ioul'xoL
who had
witnessed the
raising
of
Lazarus
31);
and
thirdly
it is added that
this fulfilled the
prophecy (Zech
ix
9):
"Fear
not,
daughter
of
Zion;
behold
your king..."
This last is
particularly significant,
since it shows that the author of
John's Gospel
himself understood
Israel here to include
Jerusalem.
Moreover,
when
Jesus
addressed Nicodemus
(the Jerusalemite
Pharisee and member of the
Sanhedrin) 32)
as "the teacher of
Israel"
(Jn
iii
Io),
the reference cannot be to the northern tribes
alone,
and Nicodemus would
presumably
have understood the
word to mean
precisely
the members of the
Jewish religion (to
the
exclusion of
Samaritans).
There is no evidence that
Jesus
himself
meant
anything
else.
Since, however, John's Gospel
nowhere
reports Jesus explicitly
to have excluded the Samaritans from
Israel,
a Samaritan reader would be at
liberty
to
suppose
that
Jesus
did not mean
exactly
what Nicodemus
might
have
thought.
In other
words,
this
gospel
has no instance of the term
'Iapa
X
33)
which is in conflict with
Jewish usage (as
attested in
Matthew),
but also none which would of
necessity
have offended Samaritans
34).
JUDEA
Above there were
distinguished
three senses of
"Judea"
relevant
to the
gospels.
We
may attempt
to establish which sense of the
word is meant in its various occurrences as follows: if
Judea ap-
31)
See
Jn xii 17-18
and ch. xi
passim.
These
'Iou8c0oL
were
probably
all
Judean
friends and relatives of
Lazarus,
as
they
had come to mourn him
immediately
after his
death;
they
would
certainly
have understood Israel
to include
Jerusalem.
32)
See
Jn
iii i and
vii
45-52.
The
question
"Are
you
from Galilee too ?"
seems
obviously
rhetorical. The Mishna's exclusion
(just noted)
of the
Samaritans from Israel
may
be considered to state the standard view of the
Pharisaic school
(as
creators of the
Mishna).
33)
The other two cases in
John (i 31, 49)
are less
clearcut,
but are not such
as to
suggest
that
anything
else is meant than in the cases
just
discussed. As
for
Jesus' greeting
Nathanael as a "true Israelite"
(Jn
i
47),
the term need
not exclude
Judeans.
On the
contrary,
the
implication
of
Jn
iii
io
and xii
13
is that "Israelite" here means
"Jewish
inhabitant of the Land of
Israel",
although
once
again
a
Samaritan
reader could
suppose
himself not to be
excluded.
34)
Note also that the Zechariah oracle
(quoted
at Mt xxi
5
as well as
Jn
xii
15, though
all four accounts of the
Entry
into
Jerusalem exemplify it)
is at least evenhanded: "For I have bent
Judah
as
my
bow;
I have made
Ephraim
its arrow."
(Zech
ix
13
in the
RSV).
112 MALCOLM LOWE
pears
in a
given
context as contrasted with both Samaria
(or
Idumea)
and
Galilee,
it
may
be
supposed
that
Judea
in the strict
sense is
meant;
while if it is contrasted
merely
with Galilee
(or
Perea),
then either sense
(I)
or sense
(2)
is meant and additional
clues are needed to determine the matter.
John's Gospel appears
to
speak
of
Judea only
in the strict sense.
Thus at
Jn
iv
3-4
it is said that
Jesus
had to
go through
Samaria
in order to return from
Judea
to
Galilee,
so
obviously
the strict
sense is meant. Since the occurrences in
iii
22
35),
iv
47
and
54
are
connected with the same
journey,
it
presumably
means
Judea
in
the strict sense in these cases too
(Galilee
is
certainly
excluded in
iv
47, 54).
The occurrences in
Jn
vii
I, 3
and xi
7 suggest Judea
in the strict sense in view of their connexions with the mention of
'IousoatoL
in
Jn
vii
I,
2 and xi
8;
moreover
Jn
vii
I
and
3
exclude
Galilee and
Jn
xi
7
excludes Perea.
Matthew and Mark follow the same
usage
as far as can be deter-
mined,
though occasionally meaning (2)
cannot be
absolutely
excluded. Thus Bethlehem of
Judea (Mt
ii
I,
5)
is Bethlehem of
Judah (as
Mt ii
6) by
contrast with Bethlehem of Zebulon. In
Mt ii 20-22
Joseph
went to live in Galilee as
opposed
to
Judea
(which probably
excludes
Samaria,
as he would not have chosen
to live there
anyway).
In Mt iii
I John
the
Baptist
was in the
Judean desert,
while in Mt iii
5 Judea
is at least
distinguished
from
Perea
(and
the less
explicit
but
parallel
Mk i
5 may
be
interpreted
in the same
sense).
Mt
iv 25
and Mk iii
7 variously distinguish
Judea
from
Galilee, Idumea, Perea,
Phoenicia and the
Decapolis.
Comparing
Mt xix
I
with Mk x
I
suggests
that the text of the
former is
wrong,
so that both
distinguish Judea
from Galilee and
Perea
36). Finally,
the Great Tribulation was
apparently supposed
35)
Here most
probably meaning
the
Judean countryside
as
opposed
to
Jerusalem (perhaps
thus also Mt iii
5,
Mk i
5
and other
passages
where both
Jerusalem
and
Judea
are
mentioned). Similarly,
in the Mishna
Judea
is
contrasted with both Galilee and
Jerusalem
at Ketuboth
4.12.
36)
Mt xix i
implies
a sense of
Judea
which includes Perea but excludes
Galilee;
this is
odd,
as at that time Galilee and Perea were a
single
adminis-
trative unit under Herod
Antipas,
while
Judea
was
governed by
Pilate.
Most
probably
one of the variant
readings
at Mk x
i
is the correct one here
too.
Ptolemy's
later classification of Perean cities under
Judea (Geography
V,
xvi.9;
here
"Judea
east of the
Jordan"
is
apparently
his name for
Perea)
at
most reflects the mid-second
century
situation,
if it is not a device of his own
invention. E. W. G. MASTERMAN
("Judaea"
in
Int.
Standard Bible
Enc.,
rev.
ed., 1955)
cites
Josephus, J.
Ant.
XII,
228-236
in
support
of
Ptolemy,
but
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI?
II3
to fall
principally upon Judea
in the strict sense
37),
so that this
is the
meaning
of
"Judea"
in the
parallel
verses Mt xxiv
16,
Mk
xiii 14
and Lk xxi 21.
Luke, however,
departs
from the strict
usage
of
"Judea".
His
calling
Herod the Great and Pilate
respectively "King
of
Judea"
(Lk
i
5)
and "Governor of
Judea" (Lk
iii
I)
might
be
discounted,
as these
(if
indeed he means
Judea
in a wider
sense)
could be
just
official titles. But there remain three
passages
where he uses
MR=a
'Iouoc'oc
or
ghX
'7
'Iouaocl apparently
to mean the whole Land of
Israel,
or
perhaps
rather the
parts
of it inhabited
by Jews 38).
Thus
in Lk vii
11-17 Jesus
raised the widow's son from the dead at Nain
(firmly
identified as near
Nazareth), whereupon
his fame
spread
"through
the whole of
Judea" 39). Comparing
Lk vi
17
with
the
in fact Perea is here said
(233)
to lie between
Judea
and Arabia.
Ptolemy,
on
the other
hand,
makes the Arabian desert
begin immediately
to the east of
Judea
"as defined"
(Geography
V,
xix.
I)-the province
as
from 105
A.D.
37)
Thus when Matthew reaches the
coming
of the Son of
Man,
he
apparent-
ly
alludes
(Mt
xxiv
30: xloc
'6e
x6
ovr7a
~anL
act puhX 'miT
y)
to Zechariah
xii
12
(Septuagint:
xoc
x6evocL7
~
y7" xoca
'u&
hX&q
uX)&;
the
cpua
are those of
David, Nathan, Levi, etc.,
i.e.
' yij
here means "the
land"),
which occurs in
a
passage concerning
an attack
by
all the nations of the earth or land
(Zech
xii
3:
xs-&v
1' & ~Ovl
-
yiS) upon Judah.
While all three
evangelists
warn
those in
Judea
to flee when
Jerusalem
is attacked
(Luke explicitly,
Matthew
and Mark in terms of the
"desolating sacrilege").
38)
The latter is
suggested by
Acts i 8
(where
Samaria is
excluded). Pliny
similarly
makes Galilee and Perea
parts
of
Judea (though excluding
Idumea
as well as Samaria: Nat. Hist.
V,
70).
That Luke on occasion means
Judea
in
a wider sense is
agreed e.g. by
K. H. RENGSTORF
(Das Evangelium
nach
Lukas,
Ioth
ed.,
1965)
and in the articles on
Judea by
Masterman
(Int.
Standard
Bible
Enc.),
E. G. KRAELING
(Dict. of
the
Bible,
2nd ed.
by
GRANT
and
ROWLEY,
1963),
and
J.
BLINZLER
(Lexikon fiir Theologie
und
Kirche,
2nd ed.
by
HiFER
and
RAHNER,
VOl.
5, 1960;
he sees the strict sense at
Acts i
8).
All see a wider sense also at Lk iv
44.
The
only
innovation here is
my suggestion
that Luke uses an
ampliative adjective
to
distinguish
the
wider sense rather than introduces it
indiscriminately.
39)
Lk vii
I,
i i
furthermore
suggest
that this Nain was not at a
great
distance from
Capernaum,
so that the incident is
portrayed
as
having
occurred well outside
Judea
in the strict sense. There is thus no reason
why
the event should have caused a stir
precisely
in this latter area.
On Nain see
e.g.
KRAELING in Dict.
of
the
Bible,
2nd ed.
Josephus
does
mention a Nain
(or Ain)
in
Judea (J.
War IV,
511-513
and
517);
also
H.
CONZELMANN,
Die Mitte
der
Zeit
(3rd
ed.,
I96O),
has tried to
argue
that
Luke's
geographical knowledge
of Palestine was inaccurate in
many
details
(p. 13, etc.), though
without the
resulting
inconsistencies
exceeding
the norm
for
good
ancient historians
(p. i1).
But the
placename
in
Josephus
is almost-
certainly
Ain:
it is the
preferred reading
at
511
and aiam is the Latin
reading
in both
cases;
moreover
f7* ("spring")
occurs in
many
Hebrew
placenames,
whereas Nain in
517
could be a scribal error induced
by
the Lukan
story.
8
114
MALCOLM LOWE
parallel
Mt
iv
25
and Mk iii
7 suggests
that "all
Judea"
in that
verse sums
up
the various
parts
of the Land of Israel mentioned
by
Matthew and Mark
40).
While
at Lk xxiii
5
Pilate was told that
Jesus
"stirs
up
the
people, teaching through
the whole of
Judea,
and
having begun
from Galilee
up
to here"
(where
Pilate would at
least have understood the whole of his
protectorate, though
his
informants more
likely
meant
Jesus' long
walk
through
most of
the
Jewish areas;
note also Acts x
37,
which omits "and" after
"Judea").
Yet when Luke
speaks
of
4
'Iouscoc
without
adding
the
adjectives
7r(ao(
or 65X he seems to mean
Judea
in the strict
sense,
so that
those
adjectives perhaps signify
a conscious
departure
from the
basic sense
41).
Thus "the hill
country
of
Judea" (Lk
i
65)
means
Judea proper (the
hill
country
of Samaria was not
populated by
Jews; compare
also Lk i
39
"into the hill
country,
to a
city
of
Judah") 42).
At Lk ii
4 Judea
excludes Galilee
(and
includes Bethle-
hem).
The
reading
'Iousotoc
at Lk
iv
44
is not
wholly
certain
(rocXthoca
occurs
quite widely
in the
manuscripts);
it can also be
explained
as
hinting
at a visit to
Jerusalem
for some feast. At
Lk
v
17
Pharisees are said to have come from Galilee and
Judea
(where
the latter therefore also excludes
Samaria,
which had no
Pharisees).
Lk
xxi
21 has
already
been discussed.
In
short,
'Iouaoctoc
means
Judea
in the strict sense
throughout
the
gospels 43), except
where Luke makes what
may
be a conscious
departure
from this
usage.
40)
Thus whereas Luke mentions "all
Judea"
and
Jerusalem
and
Phoenicia,
Mark mentions
Galilee,
Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea,
Perea and Phoenicia.
(This point presupposes
no
specific
view on the
Synoptic question.)
41)
In
Matthew, however,
rrac 'Iousaoc
does not have this
meaning
(Mt
iii
5,
nor
probably
in the
parallel
Mk i
5).
But
Josephus
has the same
usage
as Luke:
precisely
Herod the Great and
Agrippa
I are termed rulers
of
1
6),
'Iou80so (J.
Ant.
XV, 2; XIX,
343).
42) Moreover,
Professor David FLUSSER has
pointed
out to me that
)1 6peLti
must here mean the
toparchy
mentioned
by Pliny (as "Orinen",
Nat.
Hist.,
loc.
cit.),
i.e. a
comparatively
small area centered
upon Jerusalem.
This also
accords with Zechariah's
serving
as a
priest
in the
temple. Pliny
lists this
toparchy
as
merely
one of the ten
parts
of
Judea
in the strict
sense;
a some-
what
larger
area is indicated
by
Shebiith
9.2:
the three lands of the "bicur"-
Judea,
Perea and Galilee
(as
Ketuboth
13.10o,
Baba Bathra
3.2)-have
each
three
parts, Ifli
is one
part
of
Judea.
43)
As in the Mishna
(compare preceding note),
where
Judea
is
explicitly
contrasted with Galilee in almost
every
occurrence.
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI?
115
AREAS AND COMMUNITIES
Besides the terms
already variously
mentioned,
there also occurs
the term
PahXhLoo
(meaning "Galilean") 44).
This is
significant
in
that it enables us to
complete
the
following
scheme
(of
relations
between areas and
communities)
that is
presupposed by
the
evangelists:
Yi
'IapocX
(o xo4)
'IapodTX, 'Ipo-?&q
Land of Israel
(House of)
Israel,
Israelite
Galilee Galilean
'Iou~o0oc () 'IousOCZoS
Judea
?
The
question-mark
is to be
replaced
with whatever we think
should
correspond
to
Judea.
But it has
just
been seen that
"Judea"
is
normally
meant in the
strict
sense
by
the
evangelists.
And
just
as in the other
cases,
they
would need a word to
signify
a
person
from this
area;
and the
appropriate
word would be
'IousLcoq.
So
this would occur with the
meaning "Judean"
in
ordinary
Palestinian
usage
of the
period 45).
Thus in order to
say "person
from
Judea"
the
evangelists
would
have used
'Iouasaoq (or
its Semitic
equivalents).
We now have to
determine how often the converse is
true,
i.e. how often
they
meant
"Judean"
when
they
wrote
'Iou~cXo4.
THE FEASTS OF THE IOTAAIOI
Five times in
John's Gospel
there occur the
phrases eop'T
-rirv
'Iou3oLov (Jn
v
I, vi
4,
vii
I)
or
n'7yX
orjv
'Iouocucov
(Jn
ii
13,
xi
55),
which are
unquestioningly
translated "the
Feast/Passover
of the
Jews".
The
presence
of the
appendage
-rv
'Iou~oaov
is sometimes
explained
as intended to avoid confusion with the Christian
GicX,
i.e. Easter
(as
if there could be an Easter before the
Resurrection!),
or
possibly
some Christian variant of the Passover meal
46).
44)
Said of Peter or
Jesus
at Mt xxvi
69,
Mk
xiv
7o,
Lk
xxii
59
and xxiii
6;
and in other contexts at Lk
xiii
1-2 and
Jn
iv
45.
All the contexts
(except
Lk xiii
1-2)
make it clear
enough
that
"person
from Galilee" is meant. In
the Mishna occurs a few times
(e.g. Yadayim 4.8),
also VI M38
(e.g.
Ketuboth
4.12).
Contrast S.
Zeitlin,
Jew.Q.R., 64
(I974),
189-203.
45)
As in
Josephus, J.
Ant.
XVII,
254.
Note that "those whom we call
aXtLatoL"
(Against Apion I, 48) implies
"and not
'IoukZiot".
46)
On various
hypotheses
see R. E.
BROWN, Anchor Bible, vol. 29,
esp.
pp. 114, 290.
116 MALCOLM LOWE
But there is reason to
suppose
that the author of
John's Gospel
did not invent these
phrases,
since at least the first of them has
parallels
in the
Septuagint 47).
Some such
phrase
would also be
needed to
distinguish
the feasts of
Judea (and
earlier
Judah)
from
those of other
religions
in the area
48).
The second
phrase
has no
exact
Septuagint parallels;
but
again, something
like it would be
needed to
distinguish
the Passover of the
Judeans
from that of the
Samaritans,
and earlier the Passover of
Judah
from that of the
northern
kingdom 49).
Now the author of
John's Gospel
uses these
phrases
with a
perceptible
connotation of
Judea
in the strict sense
(or
even of
Jerusalem
and its immediate
surroundings).
For
they
occur
only
in reference to feasts
requiring
a
pilgrimage
to
Judea; moreover,
they
are
employed precisely
when
something
is needed to
explain
why people
are
suddenly
faced with a
journey
to
Judea.
Thus at
Jn
vii
2-3
it is said: "Now the
iop-trj
twv
'Iouamxi
Tabernacles
was at hand. So his brothers said to him: 'Leave here and
go
to
'Iouac
.....'
"
(Here
the
point
is
especially conspicuous
because
of the
etymological connexion.) Journeys
to
Jerusalem
are intro-
duced in a similar
pattern
at
Jn
ii
13,
v
I
and xi
55.
On the other
hand,
whenever the
evangelist's
account has
already
made it clear
that
Jesus (or
whoever
else)
was in
Jerusalem,
the words
iopt~,
7nxZxo (and
other feast
names)
occur without
any appendage.
There is
exactly
one
exception
to this rule
50), namely
in
Jn
vi
4
47)
Ez
xlv
17:
'v
' r~t opr~ti (Heb. 0Z1) xo=
'v
'ri vou~rlvtoa
xoc' 'v
rozq
a0PP0'oL~
xcat v
xdacs
'r~S
opt~S (D'"T9!l) ogxou
'IapocX;
Judith
viii 6
has a more
complicated
formula,
but here the shorter
Vulgate
version
(praeter
sabbata et neomenia et festa domus
Israhel) agrees
in
spirit
with
the Ezechiel
passage.
There is also Na ii
I
(i 15):
&6procr,
Iou8sc,
r&k
&opr'q
(D"11)
aou;
Ez xxxvi
38: cg
np6paaococ IpouacX.
&v
r ts &opra'tS (D'tSl71)
asq;
and I Maccabees i
39: ai
op'aocl
a
(i.e.
of
Jerusalem).
Note that
the reference
may
be to a
people,
an area or a
place.
48)
Israeli Arabs
today distinguish
between the feasts of the various
religious
communities as cId
al-Muslimin,
cid
al-Yahild, etc.,
i.e.
by
exact
analogues of1
l
opi zrcov 'Iousgocov.
49)
Note that one of the first acts of
Jeroboam
after the
split
between
Israel and
Judah
was to institute a feast in Bethel "like the feast in
Judah"
(I
Ki xii
32; Sept.:
xmr'&
',v
&op'rjv
'v &v
yt
Iou~8).
On
continuity
between
this dissension and that between Samaritans and
Judeans,
see BUCHANAN
op.
cit.,
pp. 163-165. (The
feast of I Ki xii
32
was in fact
Tabernacles,
but a
northern
analogue
to Passover would
presumably
have been instituted in the
following spring.)
50) Jn
xii
I
is not a
genuine exception:
here
n7rcMa
appears
without the
appendage (even though
a
journey ensues)
because the full formula occurs
only
three verses earlier
(in
xi
55,
while o5v of xii
I
refers back to xi
55-57).
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI?
117
which
comments,
immediately
before the
Feeding
of the Five
Thousand,
that Passover
I' opt~
-'v
'Iouscdov
was at
hand,
and
yet
no
journey
to
Judea
ensues. Now this is a remarkable case of
the
exception proving
the rule: this verse did not exist in versions
of
John's Gospel
known to some
early
authorities,
and it has often
been
regarded
as the main obstacle to
reconciling
the
chronology
of this
gospel
with the
Synoptics 51).
So on the one hand we have an
extra reason for
questioning
the
authenticity
of this
verse,
while on
the other hand there is reinforcement for the
suggestion
that for
the
principal
author of
John's Gospel (but
not for whoever was
responsible
for this
verse)
these
phrases
had a connotation of
Judea.
If an
explanation
is
sought
for such a
connotation,
it is
perhaps
to
be found in those earlier historical situations. For if such
phrases
(and
their Semitic
equivalents)
were
already
current in the
long
period
when
Judaism
was
merely
the
religion
of
Judea
in the strict
sense
(and
before that the
religion
of the
kingdom
of
Judah),
then
they
would once have meant
"feast/Passover
of the
Judeans".
As
the Hasmonean
expansion
had occurred
comparatively recently,
it is conceivable that such
phrases
continued somewhat inac-
curately
to have the same
meaning 52)
at least
long enough
for
the main author of
John's Gospel
to understand them in this
way 53).
In
any
case,
their translation should reflect their use
by
this
author;
in this
respect
the
possibilities
are either
literally
as
"feast/Passover
of the
Judeans"
or
(perhaps better)
as
"Judean feast/Passover" 54).
51)
See HERMANN VON
SODEN,
"Chronology", Encyclopaedia
Biblica
(ed.
CHEYNE
and
BLACK).
I intend to
go
into the
chronological implications
in
a
separate paper.
The
chronology
of
John depends
almost
entirely upon
these
five mentions of
feasts;
the
stylistic
feature
just explained
indicates that
four of them were due to one hand and the fifth to another.
Note that also the mention of Hanukka
(r&
yxata,
the Feast of Dedica-
tion of the
Temple)
in
Jn
x
22-23
has a
scene-setting
function: it was
a)
Hanukka and
b) winter(y), explaining why Jesus
was
a)
in the
temple
and
b)
moreover in the
portico
of Solomon
(which
offered
shelter).
52)
In fact
the
chief feasts
of
Judaism
continued to be celebrated near a
Judean temple
run
by Judeans,
so that
they
were still in a sense
peculiarly
Judean
feasts. The
slaughtering
and
eating
of the
Paschal Lamb,
for
instance,
could
only
take
place
within the walls of
Jerusalem (see
Pesahim
7. 12),
although
the associated Feast of Unleavened Bread was observed
by Jews
everywhere.
53)
But the
phrase 1'T171 "TflZ
J
1T,
which
betrays
a similar
origin,
was
already
no
longer
understood
by
the time the Mishna was
compiled (see
Kethuboth
7. 6).
This observation comes from Professor
FLUSSER.
54) Giving e.g.
for
Jn
vii 2-3:
"Now the
Judean
feast Tabernacles was at
hand. So his brothers said to him: 'Leave here and
go
to
Judea...'
".
It is
II8 MALCOLM LOWE
THE KING OF THE IOTAAIOI
The
phrase paah-Ea6
rv
'Iou8olov
occurs
many
times in the
gospels 55).
On
every
occasion but one
(Mt
ii
2)
it is used in reference
to
Jesus
at the time of the Crucifixion. It is
unquestioningly
translated
"King
of the
Jews".
But this can be seen to be dubious
once one takes account of two well-known facts.
Firstly,
it is a common feature of Greek
usage
that someone is
said to be the ruler of a
people
when the
meaning
is ruler of the cor-
responding country;
this also occurs in
respect
of the rulers of
Judea
in I Maccabees
56).
So it must be asked whether the
phrase
in
question
means
"King
of
Judea" (i.e. atXheUS -% 'Iou8GalS,
as at
Lk i
5).
Now we have seen that in the normal
usage
of the
evangelists
"Judea"
means
Judea
in the narrowest
sense,
and that moreover
Matthew's
Gospel distinguishes yi 'Iapo4X (the
Land of
Israel)
from
Judea
in this sense. So in
ordinary
Palestinian
usage
of
Jesus'
time
the title
"King
of
Judea"
would tend to
suggest
a ruler of this
small area alone.
This enables us to
appreciate
the second well-known fact: that
although
the Romans
constantly applied
the title
patXe6
-rv
'Iousrwv
to
Jesus,
the
Jews
insisted
upon calling
him
only "King
of Israel"
(p3oaelh 4 'lap'X,
whether in
praise
or in
scorn) 57).
Usually
this is
explained by saying
that the two titles are
synon-
ymous,
but that one title reflects
Jewish usage
and the other
conceivable that two other
phrases
in
John, namely 6
x0oxocpLa.6q
rCv
'Iougaov
(Jn
ii
6)
and
'opocaxeu~
-v
'Iouocov (Jn
xix
42)
have similar
connotations
(and
should thus be rendered
analogously).
55)
Mt ii
2,
xxvii
II, 29, 37;
Mk
xv 2, 9, 12, 18, 26;
Lk xxiii
3, 37, 38;
Jn
xviii
33, 39, xix
3, 19,
21
(twice).
56)
Herodotus
e.g. speaks equivalently
of the
King
of
Egypt
and the
King
of the
Egyptians,
while to this
day
the
King
of Greece is more
properly
termed
King
of the Greeks. An
example
from I Maccabees: at xiii
42
Simon
is termed
&pX&epe6S
yocgyS
xt
apocr-y6qS
xoLt
yo6[evoc
'IouGalcov,
where at
least the latter two functions refer to
Judea
alone
(note
that Pilate is
-1yeloove6ov
rig
'Iouo
ccg
at Lk iii
I).
See also I Maccabees
xiv
47
and xv
I.
Diodorus Siculus calls Aristobulus 6
r-Ov
'Ioucxtov PaLXe6q
(Lib.
Hist.
XL, ii;
compare
XL,
iv).
57)
Mt xxvii
42,
Mk
xv 32, Jn
i
49
and xii
13 (we
have
already
noted that
here not
only
the northern
kingdom
is
meant).
In the Matthew and Mark
occurrences the chief
priests
and elders mock
Jesus, telling
him to save him-
self;
the
parallel passage
in Luke
(xxiii 37)
has the Roman soldiers
mocking
him in the same
terms,
but
calling
him
P
scaLs6
r-v
'Iousatov;
while all
three
report
that the latter was the
inscription
over the cross.
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI?
II9
Gentile
usage.
But the
point
seems to be that
they
were not
synon-
ymous
in
ordinary
Palestinian
usage
of the
time,
and that the
Palestinian
Jews
used
atOXE
'IJpa
x
because the Messiah was
supposed
to be
king
of all Israel and not
merely
of
Judea.
Moreover,
even as used
by
the Romans in the crucifixion
story
the title
pcatLh
t7
'IouS
aov
does not mean
"King
of the
Jews"
or even
"King
of
Judea
in the widest sense". Luke's
Gospel
seems
to
explain
how
Jesus
received the title: it
reports
that
Jesus
was
accused to Pilate of
calling
himself "a
king",
but that it was Pilate
who took this to mean
"King
of the
'lou~sot"
(Lk
xxiii
2-3);
moreover Pilate did this
thinking
that
Jesus
was a
Judean
in one
of the narrower senses
(bi)
or
(b2) 58),
since
only subsequently
(Lk
xxiii
5-7)
did he learn that
Jesus might
be a Galilean and so
come under the
jurisdiction
of Herod
Antipas.
This
suggests
that
Pilate himself coined the full
title,
supposing Jesus
to be a
Judean
upstart trying
to seize
power
in his
procurate 59).
In
conclusion,
paoaXe4
'qrv
'Iouaoc&v
would mean
King
of
Judea
in the strict sense for the
Jews
of Palestine and in sense
(i)
or
(2)
of
Judea
for Pilate. In
any
case the
meaning
is best rendered
by
"King
of
Judea" 60)
and the
corresponding
literal translation is
"King
of the
Judeans".
JESUS
AND THE
IOTAAIOI
In the cases considered above
'IousOxot
is
commonly
assumed to
mean
"Jews" (principally
because
nobody imagines
that the as-
sumption might
need
justification),
but is more
accurately
rendered
by "Judean"
or
"Judea".
Now we turn to cases where the
meaning
58) Quite likely
in the strict sense: in four
(possibly seven) years
as
pro-
curator Pilate must have learned the difference between
Samaritans,
Idumeans and
uhot 'Iou8c0oL
(as Josephus, J.
Ant. XVII,
254). Correspond-
ingly,
his
question
at
Jn
xviii
35
is
probably
"Am
I
a
Judean
?"
59)
In all four
gospels (even
in the Acts of
Pilate)
Pilate is the first to use
the title. In
John's
version
Jesus
asked him
straightly
whether he had
invented the title or heard it from
others,
and was
given
an evasive
reply
(Jn
xviii
34-5).
60)
The same
applies
to Mt ii 2: the
Magi
were
probably looking
for the
newborn
King
of
Judea,
but
understanding by
this Herod the Great's
king-
dom
(no
wonder Herod took
fright-translating "King
of the
Jews"
is
very
inadequate here).
Nicodemus
(Jn
iii
I) might
also best be termed a "ruler
of
Judea" (as
a member of the
Sanhedrin,
whose
powers
were limited to
Pilate's area of
jurisdiction: compare Josephus, J.
Ant.
XX,
251).
This
does not contradict his
being
"the teacher of Israel"
(Jn
iii
Io),
since he could
teach all
Jews
while
ruling only
some.
120 MALCOLM LOWE
"Judeans"
has often been
suspected 61), namely
in the controversies
between
Jesus
and
'IouasdZo
in
John's Gospel.
There are
firstly
two cases where it is difficult to evade such a
conclusion,
since the
etymological
connexion between
'Iou~xtoc
and
'Iou3mxa
reinforces other
grounds
for this
interpretation. They
are
Jn
vii
I:
"And after this
Jesus
went about in
Galilee;
he would not
go
about in
I 'Iouadoc~
because the
'Iou~oxoL sought
to kill him."
And
Jn
xi
7-8,
where
Jesus (then
in
Perea)
said "Let us
go
into
'Iouocsa
again"
and his
disciples replied
"Rabbi,
the
'Iou8oCao
were but now
seeking
to stone
you,
and
you
are
going
there
again?" 62).
The
meaning "Judeans"
cannot
convincingly
be evaded
especially
in
Jn
vii
I,
since there were not
notably
fewer
Jews
in Galilee than
in
Judea 63).
But there is a
problem
connected with it. The words
"after
this" refer to a confrontation between
Jesus
and
'Iou~xZot
(Jn
vi
41, 52)
in the
synagogue
at
Capernaum (Jn
vi
59) 64).
Thus
the text as it stands forces us to understand these to have been
Judeans
too
(in
some
sense). Possibly
the
person
who inserted
Jn
vi
4
also made other alterations in connexion with this
chapter
(this possibility
is
supported by
the fact that
Jn
vii
I
exactly
61) Notably by
G.
J.
CUMING,
Expository
Times,
LX
(1949),
290-2.
CUMING
already
made some of the
points
cited in the
present
section. But he con-
ceded that the
meaning
"Israelite" is
"unquestionable"
in
phrases
such as
paLXeq/Sopp)
~Lov
'Iou8mEtv. (Also
he made no
attempt
to
exemplify
the
meaning "Judeans"
in
any
other ancient writer
whomsoever.)
Thus his
conclusions were
largely
identical with BERNARD'S
(op.
Cit.).
62)
I
am indebted to
my
friend
MENAHEM BEN-HAIM
for
perceiving
the
importance
of this
passage
and indeed for
being
made to embark on this
whole
investigation.
63)
The usual
attempt (as e.g.
R. E.
BROWN, Anchor Bible, vol. 29,
p. 306)
to
explain away
this occurrence in the
meaning "Judeans"
consists in
arguing
that
Judea
was the
only place
where
Jews
had the
power
to have
Jesus
tried
and executed. But this rather
desperate suggestion ignores
the nature of
the
danger facing Jesus
at this
point, namely
he had to fear
stoning by angry
mobs
(as
at
Jn
viii
59,
x
31). John's
account makes it clear that the
authorities
only
decided to have
Jesus liquidated
much later
(Jn
xi
47-53)
at the
instiga-
tion of
Caiaphas.
Even in ch. vii the authorities made
plans only
to arrest
but not
explicitly
to kill
him;
here
Jesus
accused the
crowd
of
seeking
to
kill him
(Jn
vii
19-20,
as
again
at
Jn
viii
37).
It was
only
when the crowds
started
coming
over to him in
large
numbers that the authorities became
really
alarmed
(Jn
xi
48).
64)
The words
tpr& mmijr
can be used in a
purely temporal
sense
(as
in
Jn
vi
I).
But here
xat pEs&
mi?=
expresses
the motivation of
Jesus'
decision
to avoid
Judea,
so that the sense of the
phrase
is not
merely temporal
but
causal.
WHO WERE THE
IOYAAIOI?
121
quotes
v
18,
occurring
in the context of
Jerusalem,
so that
vii I
may originally
have referred back to this
verse) 65).
In
any
case,
this seems to be less a reason for
doubting
the
interpretation
"Judeans"
in
Jn
vii
I
than a
problem
of ch.
vi
which arises
precisely
because that
interpretation
cannot be evaded.
The
many
other mentions of
'oua0cCotL
in their
dealings
with
Jesus
fall into two broad
classes,
according
as to whether the
Jerusalem
crowds or more
specifically
the
Jerusalem
authorities were involved.
In the former
respect
it is on almost
every
occasion
possible
to
find some sort of
justification
for both the
interpretation "Jews"
and the
interpretation "Judeans".
Yet there are a fair number of
clues in the text to indicate that the latter is more
plausible.
Now
the various occurrences of
'Iou80-LoL
can be
grouped together
ac-
cording
to the narrated incident in which
they
occur,
so that if we
find such a clue in connexion with a
given
occurrence it also
implies
that
"Judeans"
is the
meaning
for all
other
occurrences
appearing
in connexion with the same incident.
Here are some
clues,
together
with the
appropriate
related
occurrences of the word.
(i)
There is an occasion where
presumably only Judeans
can be
involved,
namely
the
'Ious3XZoL
who
go
to mourn Lazarus
(Jn
xi
19, 31, 33, 36, 45).
(2)
On another
occasion,
namely
at the time of the Festival of the
Dedication
(Hanukka, Jn
x
22), hardly anyone
but
Judeans
would be in
Jerusalem (as
this festival does not fall near a time
of
pilgrimage;
this covers
Jn
x
19,
24, 31, 33).
65)
There is another
possible explanation.
After the Hasmonean
conquest
of Galilee numbers of
Judeans
would have
gone
north to settle. We
may
imagine
that
they
would
pride
themselves on their
Judean ancestry (the
scorn of
Judeans
for
Galileans
is attested at
Jn
vii
52
and several times in
the Talmud: see Erubin
53a
and
53b,
where "foolish Galilean"
may
be
proverbial,
and Nedarim
48a)
and that the local
population
would continue
to
regard
them as
Judeans
for a few
generations. They might
also have formed
an
organised group
in the
synagogue,
rather as the
Pharisees,
etc.
appeared
as
organised groups
in the crowds
disputing
with
Jesus.
And
they might
well
pour
scorn on
any supposedly
Galilean
prophet.
But at least there were less
of them in Galilee than in
Judea.
Yet the commentators
(e.g. BERNARD, BARRETT, BULTMANN,
R. E.
BROWN)
have
proposed
so
many conjectures
about the structure and
proper position
of ch. vi in
John's Gospel
that most
probably
the mentions of
'Iouo8aot
in
this
chapter
are
only part
of the
general problem.
CUMING
too
(op. cit., p. 292)
comes to this conclusion.
Compare below,
note
87,
on Pseudo-Matthew.
122 MALCOLM LOWE
(3)
On another occasion it
appears
that
primarily
the
people
of
Jerusalem (vii 25)
are involved
(this
covers vii
II, 13, 15, 35).
(4)
The
original
reference of
Jn
vii
I
was
perhaps,
as noted
above,
to
Jn
v
18
(to
this extent
Jn
v
Io,
15, x6, 18
are
covered).
(5)
There is talk of "fear of the
'Iousxoot"
four times in
Jerusalem
(Jn
vii
13,
ix
22,
xix
38,
xx
19)
in
respect
of
people
who are
afraid to confess
any liking
for
Jesus (perhaps
this fear also
lay
behind Nicodemus'
coming by night, Jn
iii
2).
But
nobody
ever feared to be
openly Jesus'
follower in
Galilee,
so that
evidently Judeans
were more fearsome
(this
also covers
Jn
vii
II, 15, 35,
ix
18
and the second occurrence in
Jn
ix
22).
(6)
At
Jn
xiii
33 Jesus'
eleven Galilean
disciples (Judas
has
already
left the
meal)
are
clearly
not
supposed
to be
'Iou~oiot ("as
I
said
to the
'Ious~cZoL
so now I
say
to
you ...").
This refers back
to
Jn
viii
21
and also
probably
to
Jn
vii
34
and
36 (so covering
Jn
viii
22, 31, 48, 52, 57
and also
Jn
vii
II,
etc. for the third
time).
(7)
The assertion "We are descendants of
Abraham,
and have never
been in
bondage
to
any
one"
(Jn
viii
33)
was
conceivably
a
Judean riposte
to the
(Jn
vii
41, 52) supposedly
Galilean
prophet Jesus,
since there were more converts
(and Jews
of less
pure descent)
in Galilee than in
Judea,
and
Judea
had also led
the revolt
against
Seleucid rule.
(This
for what it is worth
covers in
Jn
viii
22,
etc. for a second
time.)
There are
only
six
comparable
occurrences of
'Ioua~oZoL
which are
not somehow covered as above
(Jn
ii
18, 20,
xi
54,
xii
9,
II, xix
20,
to which
might
be added the case of the
'Iou~cxoq
or
'Iousaxot
of
Jn
iii
25)
as
opposed
to
thirty
which are covered
66).
We
may
also
add an
eighth point:
(8)
There are
thirty-six
such occurrences in a
Judean
context and
only
two clearcut ones in a Galilean context
67).
66)
Thus no
theory
of
rearrangements
of the text of
John's Gospel
will
appreciably
affect the
significance
of the evidence
just cited,
but rather
just
rearrange
the
assignment
of clues to incidents.
(We
count
Jn
vii
i,
xi 8 as
covered and leave vi
41, 52
out of the
reckoning.)
67) Namely Jn
vi
41
and
52,
which seem
actually
to demand the
meaning
"Judeans" (in
some
sense).
The most
likely
location for Aenon
(mentioned
in
Jn
iii
23;
on various sites
proposed
see
e.g.
W.
EWING,
"Salim",
Int.
Standard
Bible
Enc.)
is at the southeast
tip
of
Galilee,
but in fact
Jn
iii
26
suggests
that the incident
of
iii
25
took
place
elsewhere and
possibly
in
Judea
WHO WERE THE
IOAAIOI?
123
Thus if it is a
question
of
determining
whether
the
word
'IoukocoL
means
"Jews"
or more
specifically "Judeans"
in these
occurrences,
the latter answer is
clearly preferable 68).
Now let us consider the cases where ot
'Iousmoco'
is used in reference
to the
Jerusalem
authorities
(i.e.
the Sanhedrin and its
minions).
There are nine or ten clear uses of the word in this sense
69).
It
is sometimes
thought
that this is a
peculiarly Johannine usage
of
the word
70).
But in fact it is a
perfectly
normal use of
it,
since
(as explained earlier)
all
nationality-words
can be used in this
way.
Just
as it is natural to
say
that "the French"
(meaning
the French
authorities)
have
put
a tourist on
trial,
it is natural to
speak
of
oi
'Iou-oto putting
a Galilean visitor on trial.
The
question
is rather whether
oi
'Iousa'oc
here means "the
Jewish
authorities" or "the
Judean
authorities". Now it is clear
both from the
gospels
themselves and from what is otherwise
known about this
period
that whereas the Sanhedrin had
quite
extensive
powers
in the area
governed by
Pilate,
they
had no
power anywhere
else
(the
rest of Palestine was ruled
by
sons of
Herod the
Great,
etc.) 71).
In other
words,
it is clear that
they
should
properly
be described as the
(native) Judean
authorities
(where Jesus
was,
Jn
iii 22 and iv
3).
In all the other cases discussed above
there are details of the account which show that the scene is in or near
Jerusalem.
68)
If
'Ious8oto
are
portrayed
as hostile towards
Jesus
in
many
of these
occurrences,
the
implication
is thus not that the word means "enemies of
Christ"
(as
DODDS,
op. cit.),
but
simply
that
(according
to
John's Gospel)
certain
Judeans
were in fact hostile towards him.
69) Jn
xviii
12,
14 (referring
to
xi
47-50), 31, 36, 38,
xix
7, 12,
14, 31.
The
phrase ot
&pCepets
'WV
'Iou0c'&ov
(xix 21)
is
genuinely ambiguous:
the chief
priests
had civil
powers
over
Judeans
but a
spiritual leadership
over all
Jews
(though
in this
respect Iapaoc
would be the
appropriate term);
see the remark
above on I Maccabees
xiii
42 (note 56).
70)
R. E. BROWN
(op.
cit.,
p. LXXI) says
it is used "almost as a technical
term" for the authorities.
71)
Thus "It is not
permitted
us to
put any
man to death"
(Jn
xviii
31)
suggests
that the Sanhedrin could inflict lesser
punishments. Josephus,
J.
Ant.
XX, 251 says
that
after
the death
of
Archelaus
the constitution became
an
aristocracy
under the
leadership
of the
high priests;
i.e. the Sanhedrin
then
acquired
considerable
powers,
but
only
in the
area
of
the
procurate.
He
speaks
too of the "Sanhedrin of the
Jerusalemites" (Life 62),
even at a time
(67 A.D.)
when
they
had some title to exercise an influence in Galilee
(ibid., 28-29;
the
procurate
had meanwhile been
enlarged).
Also Acts xiii
27-28
treats them as the rulers
principally
of
Jerusalem.
See further
E.
SCHtiRER, History of
the
Jewish People
...,
rev. ed.
by
VERMES
and
MILLAR,
1973,
vol.
I,
pp. 376-378.
124
MALCOLM LOWE
(where Judea
means at most the area of Pilate's
jurisdiction).
So
we should render ot
'IouaxioL
as "the
Judeans"
in this case too.
One
group
of these occurrences needs
special mention,
namely
those in which
ot
'Iou8xo
were
arguing
with Pilate. In the accounts
of Matthew and Mark an incited mob was
baying
for
Jesus'
blood.
But a careful
reading
of
John's
account reveals that here
only
the
chief
priests
and their officers were involved
(Jn
xix
6,
15),
even
in the
appeal
for the release of Barabbas
(the "they"
of
Jn 18.40
were the
'JouaO0oL
of
xviii
38,
i.e. those who in
xviii
28-29
had
brought Jesus
from
Caiaphas'
house to the
praetorium).
In
John
there is no crowd
72).
This accords with the
general
tenor of
John's
account:
Jesus
was
by
now
acquiring
so
many
followers that the
authorities had to
get
rid of him
unobtrusively
and
quickly (we
recall
Jn
xi
47 f.) 73).
In
any
case,
it results that in all occurrences of
'Iouamo
discussed
in this section the most suitable
rendering
is
"Judeans".
THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA
It would be
incorrect, however,
to conclude that
'Ioua~aooL always
means
simply "people
from
Judea"
in
John's Gospel,
since ch. iv
contains clear
examples
of its
meaning
"the
Jews
in
general".
Yet this is because ch. iv concerns a
peculiar
situation. For whereas
72)
The immediate relevance of this
point (whose
further
implications
hardly
need
explanation)
is that it leads us to
classify
the relevant occurrences
of ot
'Iouv8oL
as we have and not as cases of the
Judean populace
at
large.
Note that Acts
v
27-28 (in
contrast with Mt
xxvii
25)
bears out
John's
version:
the authorities as
opposed
to the
people
of
Jerusalem
in
general
are here
spoken
of as
responsible
for
Jesus'
blood.
(In
Acts
xiii
27 f., however,
the
Jerusalemites
and their rulers are
jointly blamed.)
Luke's
Gospel
mentions
a
crowd,
but
portrays
it as divided into enemies and
sympathisers (Lk
xxiii
13-18, 27-28;
contrast
iq0
6
Xo6q,
Mt
xxvii
25)
as the crucified criminals too
were divided
(Lk
xxiii
39-41;
contrast Mt xxvii
44,
Mk xv
32).
73)
In
Jn
i
19
too ot
'lousOoro (as
senders of emissaries from
Jerusalem
to
John
the
Baptist) probably
means the authorities. But the
frequent
inter-
pretation
of it
(e.g.
R. E.
BROWN,
op.
cit.,
pp.
115
and
I19)
to mean the
authorities at
Jn
ii
I8,
20
(where Jesus' authority
is
questioned)
is based on
an
illegitimate comparison
with the
Synoptics.
For there the
story
has a
wholly
different
ending,
which
depends precisely upon
a contrast between
the authorities and the crowd
(Jesus puts
a
question
which the former dare
not answer for fear of the
latter),
a contrast
completely
absent in
John's
version.
Compare
the
Question
about David's Son
(Mt
xxii
41,
Mk xii
35,
Lk
xx
41):
this is
put
in Matthew to the Pharisees and in Luke to the scribes
to confound
them,
but in Mark
(who
has no
story
of a
Judean
birth for
Jesus)
it is
put
to the crowds to educate them. On
Jn
xi
47 f.,
see note
63.
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI? 125
the rest of
John's Gospel
reflects Palestinian
Jewish usage,
this
chapter gives
us Samaritan
usage
of the
period.
There are two relevant
passages.
The woman asked
Jesus (Jn
iv
9):
"How is it that
you,
a
'Iouoxtgo,
ask a drink of
me,
a woman of
Samaria?" There follows a remark which the RSV renders: "For
'Iousa-oL
have no
dealings
with Samaritans"
74).
In the second
passage
the woman asked where one should
worship
and
Jesus'
answer included
(Jn
iv
22):
"You
(pl.) worship
what
you
do not
know;
we
worship
what we
know,
for salvation is from the
'IousaxoL."
Now the second of these utterances is rather odd on
Jesus' lips,
since in
making
such an assertion he
might ordinarily
have said
"Israel"
(as
is attested
by
his own utterances in
John
as well as
in
Matthew).
However,
the answer to the
puzzle
is
given
in this
same
chapter,
since at
Jn
iv
12 the woman asked
Jesus:
"Are
you
greater
than our father
Jacob,
who
gave
us the well..." In other
words,
the Samaritans considered themselves to be no less a
part
of Israel than the
Jews 75).
So
Jesus
could not have said
"you
Samaritans and us of Israel" without
insulting
the woman in the
grossest possible
manner;
therefore he
acquiesced
in what
(for
Palestinian
Jews)
was a somewhat
sloppy
mode of
speech 76).
In the first utterance
quoted
above the woman
presumably
meant that
Jesus
was a
Jew 77).
It is worth
asking
how she under-
74)
This is
widely regarded
as a later
gloss; though
at the other extreme it
could be
part
of the woman's
question.
75) Although Jn
iv 12
already
makes the situation
clear,
we
may
also note
some
unfriendly
remarks
by Josephus(J.
Ant.
IX, 291; XI, 340-345)
about
the
self-identity
of the Samaritans. He states that-when it suits them-
they
claim to be Hebrews related to the
'Iousalot,
in virtue of descent from
Ephraim
and Manasseh the sons of
Joseph; though
even then
they
cannot
admit to
being
themselves
'IousaotL
(XI, 344),
while at other times
they may
deny any
connexion.
(Note
that
'Iou&xkot
must in this instance be a term
narrower than
"Hebrews".)
76)
There is an
apt
modern
parallel.
Until a
century ago, people
did not
call themselves "Arabs" unless of
probable
Arabian
ancestry.
To this
day
some Arabs refuse to consider
Egyptians
to be "real" Arabs. But even such
a
purist might
refrain from
saying
"us Arabs and
you Egyptians"
when in
conversation with an
Egyptian! (Such
at
any
rate was the situation a few
years ago; today
some
Egyptians
are
ready
to make the
distinction.)
77)
There is no feature of the situation
(as reported) whereby
the woman
might
have
recognised Jesus' supposedly Judean origin,
which is
hardly
in
evidence
anywhere
in
John's Gospel (except conceivably
at
Jn
iv
44;
see
BUCHANAN,
op. cit.). Jesus'
Galilean
background,
however,
might
have been
clear from his
speech (as
with
Peter,
Mt xxvi
73; Jn
vii
41, 52
are
possibly
relevant here
too).
126 MALCOLM LOWE
stood the word
'Iou8oCZto
in this
respect.
Now
just
as the
Jews
considered the Samaritans to
practise
a deviant version of
Judaism,
the Samaritans considered that
they
alone
practised
the true faith
of Israel and that
Judaism
was an aberration
originating
from
(and
centred
on) Judea 78).
Thus the Samaritans differed from Palestinian
Jewish usage 79)
in
saying
o0
'Iou8
oi
instead of
'Iopap
,
but what
they
meant was
perhaps something
like
"people
who are
Judean
in the sense of
belonging
to the aberrant
Judean
version of the
true faith of
Israel",
or for short
"Judean by religion".
This makes translation of
'Iou8oXoL
in
John
ch. iv rather difficult:
"Jews"
has the correct
denotation,
but lacks the connotation of
Judea probably
felt
by
both the woman and
Jesus.
The most
exact
(if cumbersome)
solution would be to translate
"Judeans"
and add
an
explanatory
footnote.
IOT-AIOI IN THE SYNOPTICS
Nearly
all occurrences of the word in the
Synoptic Gospels
are
as
pacths
-WrV
'IoucxLcov.
The
remaining
four are discussed here.
According
to Matthew ch.
xxviii,
some of the
guards placed
around
Jesus'
tomb went after the Resurrection to
report
the event
to the chief
priests.
The latter
gave
them
money
to
put
about the
story
that
Jesus' disciples
had stolen his
body.
The
guards
did this
and it is added
(Mt
xxviii
15):
"and this
story
has been
spread
78)
The woman's
question
about
worship begins:
"Our fathers
worshipped
on this mountain ..."
(Jn
iv
20);
the Samaritans could
appeal
to Moses'
instructions
concerning
Mounts Ebal and Gerizim for the
antiquity
of their
practice (see
Deut
xxvii,
even in its
Jewish
version where Ebal instead of
Gerizim is made the site of the
altar). They
would also have been
particularly
aware of the recentness of the Hasmonean
expansion (which
involved the
destruction of their
temple
on Gerizim
amongst
other
afflictions).
Note
(from
the
Jewish side)
Berachoth 8.8: a
Jew may say
"Amen" to a
Samaritan's
blessing only
if he has heard
every
word
(lest
he assent to an
impropriety).
79)
There is no clear case in
John
of deviation from this
usage
outside ch.
4.
Even the formulas
&op~i/7rdac
'v
'Ious8c'wv
are used with a connotation
of
Judea (in
the narrowest
sense)
as
against
all other
areas,
not a connotation
of the
Jewish
areas as
against
Samaria. The
only
other
plausible
candidate
as a deviation is
Jn
xviii 20,
where
Jesus spoke
of
"synagogues
and the
temple,
where all the
'Iou8otoL
come
together";
here there
may
be a
usage
(7i&vreS
o0
'IousktoL)
similar to Luke's
r&a
'Iouksca,
i.e. the
Jews (as
"Judeans by religion")
were
Judeans
in a wider sense
(indicated
here too
by
the
adjective ir&;).
But the
meaning may
be
"Judeans" (i.e.
if the chief
priest
wanted to know about
Jesus' teachings
he need
only
ask his fellow
Judeans).
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI? 127
among
the
'Iousotm
to this
day".
Now as
they spread
the
story
in
and around
Jerusalem,
it would in the first
place typically
have
been heard from
Judeans, although
it is also conceivable that the
evangelist
meant that this was a
story
told
by Jews against
Chris-
tians.
In Mk vii
3, however,
the
meaning
is
fairly obviously "Judeans".
Pharisees and some scribes from
Jerusalem
came to observe
Jesus'
activities in Galilee and asked him
why
his
disciples
ate with
dirty
hands. Mark
explains
in a
lengthy
aside
(Mk
vii
3-4)
that "the
Pharisees and all
'Iou8cio"
were
fussy
about cleanliness. Since
Jesus' (predominantly Galilean) disciples
were of course
Jews,
and
the critical visitors were
Judeans,
the most
plausible interpretation
of the remark is "the Pharisees
(whether
or not
Judeans)
and all
Judeans (whether
or not
Pharisees) ..." 80).
At Lk vii
3,
on the other
hand,
most
likely "Jews"
is meant:
the centurion with a sick slave asked some elders of the
'IouSx"ot
to
seek
help
from
Jesus
in
Capernaum (Lk
vii
I)
81).
The
point may
be that Luke could not have written "elders of Israel" without
misleadingly suggesting
the chief
priests
and suchlike in
Jerusalem.
Note
anyway
that this is one of the rare occasions in the
gospels
(apart
from the
Crucifixion)
where there is a need to
distinguish
between
Jews
and Gentiles.
In Lk xxiii
51
(RSV
xxiii
50)
Arimathea is called a
"city
of the
'Iouscxot".
Unfortunately
the most
likely
site for Arimathea is in
an area added to
Judea
from Samaria in
early
Maccabean times
(I
Maccabees xi
34),
so there is no
way
of
deciding
whether Luke
meant a
city
"of
Judea" (as opposed
to
Samaria,
etc.)
or a
"Jewish"
city (as opposed
to a
Greek,
Samaritan
one).
These
examples
are too few for firm conclusions. Yet
they
do
80)
Erubin
53a
corroborates this
interpretation:
here a Hebrew
saying
attributed to the
compiler
of the Mishna accuses the Galileans
('
"I
n)
of
having
failed to
preserve
the law as the
Judeans
(;vT'I
ll)
preserved it;
there ensues a discussion of how the
Galileans
lost their
knowledge
of the
law. The relative
antiquity
of the
saying (c. 200 A.D.)
is confirmed
by
its
occurrence in Hebrew
(in
the Aramaic
Gemara),
and it in turn
suggests
a
long-
established situation. Note also that the instance of "Galilean
folly"
at
Erubin
53b,
which involved Rabbi
Jose
the Galilean and
Beruriah,
is set
in the
early 2nd
century.
Thus it is
plausible
that
Judeans
were
already
regarded
as more fastidious than Galileans when Mark's
Gospel
was written.
81)
One
might try
to
explain
this
away by pointing
out that the
'Iou8a0ot
of
Jn vi
41
and
52
also
appeared
in
Capernaum,
but this
proposal
lacks
conviction.
128 MALCOLM LOWE
corroborate what was found about the
meaning
of
" 'Iouscxa
in the
Synoptics:
for
they suggest
that
o
'Ioua&oL
too is used
only
in its
strictest sense
by
Matthew and
Mark,
but with some
flexibility
by
Luke.
TRANSLATION
So the
variety
of natural
meanings
for
'IouaXZoc
which were
distinguished
on semantic
grounds
at the outset is more than
sufficient to deal with all occurrences of the word in the
gospels 82).
In the confrontations between
Jesus
and
'Iou8Mxo0,
the latter
were found to be
"Judeans",
either in reference to the
Judean
population
in
general
or
(less frequently except
after
Jesus' arrest)
to the
Judean
authorities. In the
phrases Sop-r~
~v
'Iouatlov,
oh~ke
&v
'Iouaov,
etc. the
appendage
Twv
'Iouamccv
was found
to refer
obliquely
to
Judea (in
a narrow
sense).
This
already
ac-
counts for some nine-tenths of the occurrences of the word
'Iouacxot
in the
gospels.
As
against
this,
there were four or five
probable
occurrences in the sense
"Jews" (and perhaps meaning "Judeans
by religion") 83). Similarly,
I
'Iou8cxx
meant
"Judea
in the strict
sense"
in
perhaps
all but five cases out of
twenty-nine. Only
Luke
ever used either term
evidently
in a wider sense
(apart
from the
special
circumstances of
John
ch.
iv).
From this
standpoint
the usual standard translation of these
terms is
oddly
inconsistent.
Although
the
'Iou8aXo0
of the
gospels
are
normally (and
almost
always)
the
people
from
41
'Iouscax,
the
former term is almost
universally 84)
rendered
"Jews"
and the
latter
"Judea"!
82) Every
occurrence has been discussed
except Jn
xix
40,
where
Jesus'
body
was
prepared
for the tomb "as is the custom of the
'Iou&saot".
Now
the
description
of how
Jesus' body
was
prepared (Jn
xix
40,
xx
5-7)
is like
the
description
of Lazarus
(the Judean)
as he
emerged
from his tomb
(Jn
xi
44,
see also xii
7), though
this custom
may
not have been
only Judean.
83)
These cases were
rare,
because
(as
evinced
by
the
gospels
and the
Mishna)
normal Palestinian
Jewish usage
for "the
Jews"
was
'Iapal.
Thus
the
gospels
in a sense continue the
usage
of I Maccabees: in the meantime
the
religious-national
term
'IJpa'X
(but
not the
regional-geographical
term
'Iou8aXoL)
had
simply expanded
its
range
of
application (together
with the
Hasmonean
conquests).
84) 'Iou8xZot
is translated
"Jews" (in
some cases
"Jewish"
for rV
'Iou8aEov)
in the RSV and its antecedents
(already
in TYNDALE'S
version),
and
e.g.
in
the
following
modem versions of the
gospels: J.
SMITH,
R. G.
MOULTON,
J. MOFFAT,
E.
J.
GOODSPEED,
Concordant
Version,
B.
WILSON,
G.
VERKUYL,
New World
Translation,
E. V.
R1EU,
C. C.
TORREY,
H.
J.
SCHONFIELD,
WHO WERE THE
IOTAAIOI?
129
A number of recommendations were made for
translating
these
terms in the
gospels
and will be summarised here. The
phrases
poaLCEPXC6
V
/cpZ
v
'Iouaoc'Lcv
should be rendered
"King/ruler
of
Judea"
and the
phrases
op-/i/cx/xx0praopa/puaxe rv
'IousoLv
as
"Judean feast/Passover/rites
of
purification/day
of
Preparation".
Otherwise
'Iousmoos
should
simply
be translated
"Judean" except
at Lk vii
3, Jn
iv
9 (twice),
22 and
possibly
xviii
20o.
In the latter cases one can either translate
"Jew"
or else
translate
"Judean"
and add a footnote
(as
is needed with
'Ious~oto
at Lk vi
17,
vii
17,
xxiii
5) 85).
While if literal translation is
preferred
for
PatXhsS
rv
'IouSou'v,
etc.,
then
"Judeans"
must be used
there too.
In the remainder of the New Testament a more
complicated
situation
may
be
expected
and a
greater
incidence of
'IouxocoZ
meaning "Jews
in
general",
for two reasons: the
Diaspora
is much
more in evidence
86)
and the
great majority
of cases are found in
Acts
(which may
reflect the
flexibility already
found for
Luke) 87).
Amplified
New
Testament,
J.
B.
PHILLIPS,
Jerusalem
Bible,
Good News
for
Modern Man,
New
English
Bible. TORREY eliminates
(" "opr')
rCa
'Iousal~
v
in
Jn
ii
13,
vi
4,
xi
55 (but
not in
Jn
v
I,
vii
2).
Good News often translates
"the
Jewish
authorities"
(thus
in
Jn
i
19,
ii
18,
vii
I
but not in
Jn
xi 8 or
xix).
F. FENTON
(5th
ed.,
19o6)
translated
mostly "Judeans" (inc. John
iv
and
vi),
but sometimes
"Jews" (haphazardly:
thus
"Jews"
in
Jn
ii
18
but
"Judeans"
in
Jn
ii
2o;
"Judean
festival" but
"Jewish Passover";
both
"King
of the
Judeans"
and
"King
of the
Jews").
TYNDALE translated
) 'Iou8Gax everywhere
in the
gospels
as
"Jewry"
or
"the
Jews'
land". But the
Authorised Version
used
"Judea"
in almost
every
case and later translations eliminated other
renderings altogether.
Thus
Tyndale's
is the
only
consistent translation
(with Jn
vii
I,
xi
7-8,
vii
2-3,
etc.
automatically making sense) amongst
those named above.
85)
The RSV does this
systematically
for the less fateful word
So0xoq.
86) For
although
in Palestinian
Jewish usage
ot
'Iou~totL normally
meant
the
Judeans
in the strict
sense,
outside Palestine it
commonly
meant either
"inhabitants of Palestine" or
Jews
in
general.
There are numerous modern
parallels; e.g.
inside the U.S.A. a Yankee is someone from the north-eastern
states,
and inside Britain
nobody
would dare call a Scot an
Englishman,
but
abroad "Yankee"
commonly
means
any
U.S. citizen and
"Englishman" any
Briton.
81)
The
apocryphal gospels, however,
are
strictly comparable
in situation
with the canonical ones.
Moreover,
to the extent that
they
contain
genuinely
early
material their
linguistic usage appears
to concur. Thus the
Jews
are
invariably 'IapocdX
in the
Protoevangelium
of
James, apart
from one mention
by
the
Magi
of the
aLXs
a'yT
'Iou8oa(ov.
The occurrences of
'Iouk-Loq
in
Pseudo-Matthew have
probably crept
into the
(comparatively late)
text:
in ch. xiii the word occurs
precisely
in an
explanatory
addition to the
parallel
account in the
Protoevangelium;
it is several times
lacking
in
TISCHENDORF'S
manuscript
B
(chs.
xxvi, xxx,
xxxix);
ch. xxvi and chs. xxviii-xxix have two
9
130
MALCOLM LOWE
But there is
already
a need to amend the current mistranslations
in the
gospels,
since
rendering
oi
'Ioua~xoa
as "the
Jews"
is not
only
incorrect
(and
inconsistent with
rendering 'Iouoaml
as
"Judea")
but also
pernicious.
As
long
as the mistranslation
continues,
genera-
tions will continue to read that "the
Jews"
had
Jesus
killed and
(by combining 88)
this with Mt xxvii
25)
to infer that
they
declared
themselves and their descendants
responsible.
Thus this
philological
error
(a
confusion
89)
of the Palestinian use of
'Iouaxcios
to
distinguish
Judeans
from
Galileans,
etc. with its wider
meanings
in the
Diaspo-
ra)
has
provided,
in
practically
all modern translations of the
gospels,
a constant excuse for antisemitism whose further existence
cannot be
permitted.
versions of the same
story, only
one of which uses the word. The Acts of
Pilate
(apart
from occurrences of
'Eppoctot) generally
accords with
John's
usage:
the
'Iou8&XoL
are
Jesus'
accusers,
but
'Iou&sax
is
emphatically
con-
trasted with Galilee and
'Iapa4x
occurs
widely
as the name of the
Jews
in
general.
The Paradosis of Pilate
expressly
makes "the
'Iou~XtOL living
in
Jerusalem
and the
surrounding
towns"
responsible
for
Jesus'
death
(? 6).
I
defer a more detailed
study
to a
subsequent paper.
88)
The combination itself is
illegitimate,
since
(as pointed
out
earlier)
in
John's
account
only
a small
group
from the
Judean
authorities was involved
and there was no crowd to shout "His blood be on us and our children!"
In
fact,
since
John's Gospel
is not
anti-Jewish (but
at most
anti-Judean),
nothing prevents
its author from
having
been himself a
Jew, e.g.
a Galilean
resentful of
Judean
scorn.
(Nothing
in the
present paper,
however,
depends
upon conjectures
about his
identity.)
89)
The
misunderstanding
would have started when the
meaning "Judean"
(or
at
any
rate the strict sense of
"Judea") began
to die
out,
thus
approx-
imately
in the late 2nd
century.
In the New Testament
writings
the
following
two controversies are still
independent
of each other:
(I)
the doctrinal and
theological controversy
between the
early
Church and non-Christian
Jews; (2)
the
controversy
over
the death of
Jesus,
for which
variouisly
the
Judean
authorities
(or
less
plausibly
the
Judean population
at
large)
or the
people
of
Jerusalem
were
made
responsible (and regarded
as
having
received their
punishment
in
the destruction of
Jerusalem, e.g.
Mt xxiii
37-xxiv 2).
It remains a task for
further
enquiry
to
investigate
the
stages by
which these
originally
distinct
controversies became
confused,
so that the destruction of
Jerusalem,
etc.
came to be
widely regarded (and
on the basis
precisely
of the text of the
gospels)
no
longer
as a one-time
punishment
of a
specific group
of individuals
but as a
continuing punishment
of the
Jews
in
general.
Note,
in the
present
context,
that in the
angry
outburst of I Th
ii
14-16
oi
'IouscXoL
means the inhabitants of
'
'IouScal
(ii 14)-whether
in a wider
or a narrower sense-as set over
against
the
(primarily Jewish, though
also
Gentile,
Ac xvii
5) persecutors
of the Thessalonian Christians. Thus here
too the correct translation is
"Judeans" (and upon
them
9cp0oasv
6py~,
ii
16).

Who Were The Ioudaioi

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Who Were The Ioudaioi

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Who Were the ?

Author(s): Malcolm Lowe

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen