Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Jews

Expand Messages
  • Antonio Jerez
    ... I agree with Leonard Maluf that your thesis hardly works. Actually the works of Josephus show that in the first century Iodaios mean both Judean = a
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 8, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Ross Saunders wrote:

      > Thus, I believe the word 'Jew' is anachronistic, too limited in range,
      > and inaccurate and should not be used to translate 'Ioudaios'. We should
      > use 'Judean' and let the context provide the range of meanings the
      > author has in mind.
      > I think the FG would be better served if we did this.

      I agree with Leonard Maluf that your thesis hardly works. Actually the
      works of Josephus show that in the first century "Iodaios" mean both
      'Judean' = a person from the region of Judea, and a "Jew" = a person
      belonging to the Jewish faith. Also take a look at Maurice Casey's book
      "Is Gospel of John true?". There you will find ample testimony.

      Best wishes

      Antonio Jerez
      Göteborg University, Sweden
    • Thomas W Butler
      ... Ross, Yes, of course it should. Thank you for the correction. ... See The Enhanced Strong s Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, 1996) #3063,
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 RHS <diadem@...> wrote:
        >
        > Tom Butler,
        > I am a little puzzled by your references to Nehemiah.
        > You refer to Neh. 2:15. Should that be verse 16?

        Ross,
        Yes, of course it should. Thank you for the correction.

        > If so, why do you claim that 'Jews' are defined as 'the priests,
        > the nobles, the officials, and the rest that were to do the work'
        > (NRSV)?

        See The Enhanced Strong's Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship,
        Ontario, 1996) #3063, definition #6: "an overseer of Jerusalem in
        the time of Nehemiah."

        The term is first used in Ezra in the context of a conflict over the
        restoration of the temple. The King of Persia, Cyrus, had issued
        an edict that ended the Babylonian exile of people from Israel and
        gave them authority to rebuild their temple. Ezra two provides a
        list of the exiles, organized in groups by their ancestors' names,
        then as descendants of priests, Levites (including the singers, the
        gatekeepers, and the temple servants), the descendants of Solomon's
        servants, and those who could not prove their ancestry (which meant
        that they were excluded from serving in the temple, because they
        were considered unclean -Ezra 2:62). When the rebuilding of the
        temple began, the Levites were appointed as overseers (Ezra 3: 9)

        I am suggesting that the writer(s) of the Fourth Gospel chose this
        term, ironically, as a shorthand reference to the entire aristocracy
        of Jerusalem responsible for "re-building the temple." The term is
        an ironic one, because they are not, in fact, re-building the temple,
        but are the ones who are responsible for it when it is being destroyed.
        Jesus is the one who "rebuilds the temple" (in three days - Jn. 2: 19).

        A key part of my thesis is that Jesus, according to the FG, did not
        destroy these people when he destroyed the temple. He received
        those who chose to follow him as disciples (See Jn. 11: 19, 36-37,
        45-46.)

        Yours in Christ's service,
        Tom Butler
      • FMMCCOY
        ... From: Thomas W Butler To: Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 7, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Thomas W Butler" <butlerfam5@...>
          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:52 AM
          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jews


          >
          > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 RHS <diadem@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Tom Butler,
          > > I am a little puzzled by your references to Nehemiah.
          > > You refer to Neh. 2:15. Should that be verse 16?
          >
          > Ross,
          > Yes, of course it should. Thank you for the correction.
          >
          > > If so, why do you claim that 'Jews' are defined as 'the priests,
          > > the nobles, the officials, and the rest that were to do the work'
          > > (NRSV)?
          >
          > See The Enhanced Strong's Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship,
          > Ontario, 1996) #3063, definition #6: "an overseer of Jerusalem in
          > the time of Nehemiah."
          >
          > The term is first used in Ezra in the context of a conflict over the
          > restoration of the temple. The King of Persia, Cyrus, had issued
          > an edict that ended the Babylonian exile of people from Israel and
          > gave them authority to rebuild their temple. Ezra two provides a
          > list of the exiles, organized in groups by their ancestors' names,
          > then as descendants of priests, Levites (including the singers, the
          > gatekeepers, and the temple servants), the descendants of Solomon's
          > servants, and those who could not prove their ancestry (which meant
          > that they were excluded from serving in the temple, because they
          > were considered unclean -Ezra 2:62). When the rebuilding of the
          > temple began, the Levites were appointed as overseers (Ezra 3: 9)
          >
          > I am suggesting that the writer(s) of the Fourth Gospel chose this
          > term, ironically, as a shorthand reference to the entire aristocracy
          > of Jerusalem responsible for "re-building the temple." The term is
          > an ironic one, because they are not, in fact, re-building the temple,
          > but are the ones who are responsible for it when it is being destroyed.
          > Jesus is the one who "rebuilds the temple" (in three days - Jn. 2: 19).
          >
          > A key part of my thesis is that Jesus, according to the FG, did not
          > destroy these people when he destroyed the temple. He received
          > those who chose to follow him as disciples (See Jn. 11: 19, 36-37,
          > 45-46.)

          Dear Tom Butler:

          I am just finishing a book, by Gregory J. Riley, called The River of God.
          It is of uneven quality: having several brilliant insights, along with some
          great over-simplifications and distortions of history. I do, though,
          recommend it for reading.

          At one pont (p. 221), he cites I Maccabees 5:21-23, which he thusly renders,
          "Simon went to Galilee and fought many battles against the Gentiles, and the
          Gentiles were crushed before him....Then he took the Jews of Galilee...with
          their wives and children and all they possessed and led them to Judea with
          great rejoicing."

          Regarding this passage, he (p. 221) states, "If we are to believe this text,
          Galilee was abandoned and left to the Gentiles; the Jews were repatriated to
          Judea. But the claim that all the Jews of Galilee were removed to Judah by
          Simon is simply not true. Later history shows quite clearly that Jews
          remained in Galilee long after Simon. Simon removed "the Jews of Galilee",
          yet Jews certainly remained behind. How is one to understand this
          contradiction?"

          His response (pp.221-22) is this, "The answer lies in the long history of
          antipathy between north and south. The very word 'Jew' comes from the name
          of the tribe of Judah. Simon took back to Judea those who had appealed to
          the south for deliverance, who felt threatened in Galilee and saw their
          natural home and place of safety in Judea. The reference must be to the
          portion of Jews among the larger community of Israelites of Galilee. These
          alone were recognized as 'genuine Jews' by Simon and the Jerusalem
          contingent."

          This raises several questions. For example, what is the definition of
          "Jews" in I Maccabees 5:21-23? Again, is this the same definition of "Jews"
          used by the author(s) of John?

          Do you or any other JL listers have any proposed answers to these two
          questions?

          Regards,

          Frank McCoy
          1809 N. English Apt. 17
          Maplewood, MN USA 55109
        • Bob Schacht
          ... Frank, It is my understanding that the modern term Jew is derived from the name of the province of Judea, so that wherever you see the word Jew
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 8, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            At 03:32 PM 12/7/01 -0600, FMMCCOY wrote:

            >Dear Tom Butler:
            >
            >I am just finishing a book, by Gregory J. Riley, called The River of God.
            >It is of uneven quality: having several brilliant insights, along with some
            >great over-simplifications and distortions of history. I do, though,
            >recommend it for reading.
            >
            >At one pont (p. 221), he cites I Maccabees 5:21-23, which he thusly renders,
            >"Simon went to Galilee and fought many battles against the Gentiles, and the
            >Gentiles were crushed before him....Then he took the Jews of Galilee...with
            >their wives and children and all they possessed and led them to Judea with
            >great rejoicing."
            >
            >Regarding this passage, he (p. 221) states, "If we are to believe this text,
            >Galilee was abandoned and left to the Gentiles; the Jews were repatriated to
            >Judea. But the claim that all the Jews of Galilee were removed to Judah by
            >Simon is simply not true. Later history shows quite clearly that Jews
            >remained in Galilee long after Simon. Simon removed "the Jews of Galilee",
            >yet Jews certainly remained behind. How is one to understand this
            >contradiction?"
            >
            >His response (pp.221-22) is this, "The answer lies in the long history of
            >antipathy between north and south. The very word 'Jew' comes from the name
            >of the tribe of Judah. Simon took back to Judea those who had appealed to
            >the south for deliverance, who felt threatened in Galilee and saw their
            >natural home and place of safety in Judea. The reference must be to the
            >portion of Jews among the larger community of Israelites of Galilee. These
            >alone were recognized as 'genuine Jews' by Simon and the Jerusalem
            >contingent."
            >
            >This raises several questions. For example, what is the definition of
            >"Jews" in I Maccabees 5:21-23? Again, is this the same definition of "Jews"
            >used by the author(s) of John?
            >
            >Do you or any other JL listers have any proposed answers to these two
            >questions?
            >
            >Regards,
            >
            >Frank McCoy

            Frank,
            It is my understanding that the modern term "Jew" is derived from the name
            of the province of Judea, so that wherever you see the word "Jew"
            (Ioudaios) in the NT or Greek Apocrypha, you can substitute the word
            "Judean". There is ambiguity, because the topos was also used as an ethnos,
            especially in the writing of Paul, but also probably in Roman law (I would
            guess).

            You should also keep in mind the history of Galilee as a separate province
            from Judea: for most of its history, it has been independent of Judea.
            Galileans were sometimes referred to as "Israelites," not only at the time
            of the Divided Monarchy, but also at the time of Jesus (e.g., John 1:47).
            Judea and Galilee were united only under the United Monarchy (probably
            about 100 years) and for a brief time under the Macabees, if I recall
            correctly. Of course, in the time of Jesus they were administratively
            distinct parts of the Roman Empire. Consequently, Judea and Galilee were
            united only for about 150? out of 1000 years from King Saul to Jesus.

            Bob
            Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
            Northern Arizona University
            Flagstaff, AZ
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.