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

Re: [John_Lit] Jews again

Expand Messages
  • Yakub Trihandoko
    Nice try! But I still would like to present some facts and questions. 1. Regarding your explanation on John 4:22, I think we need to take notice carefully that
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Nice try! But I still would like to present some facts
      and questions.
      1. Regarding your explanation on John 4:22, I think we
      need to take notice carefully that in this
      conversation Jesus explicitly included himself in
      "Jews" by using first person plural.
      2. Are you saying that the salvation comes from
      "Judaean" because there the temple was? In my
      observation, such kind of idea about the importance of
      Jerusalem temple is foreign to the Fourth Gospel. The
      attitude toward the temple in Fourth Gospel is
      relatively negative, isn't it? (although, of course,
      you could bring John 4:20b here).
      3. In Philo's and Josephus' writings, it can hardly be
      found that the word "Ioudaios" is used to distinguish
      Jewish people who lived in Galilee and Judea (see
      TDNT).
      4. What is your opinion about the following facts:
      a. Pilate had already known that Jesus was a Galilaean
      (Luk 23:6), but why he still addressed, or even
      posted, JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS? If "JEWS" here
      were to be understood as Judaeans, the story would be
      "unreasonable".
      b. In Pauline letters, the word "Jews" is used mostly
      as contrast to Gentiles (not Galilleans). If we look
      closely at each context, we will know that Paul was
      mentioning "Jews" in the sense of "race", not region.
      c. We have huge bunch evidences that many Jewish
      people (in race) who dwelt in/came from outside Judea
      were also called "Jews".e.g., Acts 2:5, 10; 9:22;
      11:19; 16:3; 18:2, etc.
      d. As widely known, the word "Jews" in the Fourth
      Gospel is used broadly and inconsistently (see Kysar,
      John: Maverick Gospel, revised ed., and Brown, Anchor
      vol. 29). Generally, it is used to refer to
      "outsiders" or "unbelievers". The concern is more on
      the ATTITUDE of certain group of people toward Jesus
      rather than on their original region. Considering
      this, "Jews" is still better choice than "Judaeans".

      I'm looking forward to hearing and learning from you.
      Thanks.

      Sincerely,
      Yakub Trihandoko
      A graduate student from Indonesia.
      --- diadem <diadem@...> wrote:
      > Thanks for your response, Leonard Maluf.
      > John 4:22 actually works very well when you take
      > into account the way
      > people identified themselves. What Jesus said to the
      > Samaritan woman
      > was, 'Salvation is from those who belong to the land
      > of Judea (and not
      > from those who belong to the land of Samaria).' Both
      > these people shared
      > the same race: they both originated from the Hebrew
      > people. In our
      > current usage, they were both 'Jews'. But God's plan
      > of salvation
      > involved those who belonged to the tribes of Judah
      > and belonged to the
      > land of Judah where the temple was. Thus I believe
      > that the word
      > 'Judean' works much better than 'Jew'.
      > Most diaspora Hebrews regarded themselves as
      > belonging to Judea. Paul
      > did not call himself a 'Tarsian', even though he
      > took pride in coming
      > from this 'no mean city'. Paul calls Peter 'a
      > Judean' in Gal. 2:14, even
      > though Peter was originally a Galilean. However,
      > from the time Peter
      > became a disciple of Jesus he actually moved to
      > Jerusalem, having given
      > up his role as inheriting head of his father's
      > household. He is thus now
      > a 'Judean'.
      > I suspect that most references to people being
      > 'Judeans' will be a
      > statement of their identity�of the place to which
      > they belong�rather
      > than of their race.
      > I still hold that 'Judean' is a better translation
      > since it is capable
      > of a fairly wide interpretation, whereas the word
      > 'Jew' is restrictive
      > the way we use it today, and can lead to
      > anti-Judaism and a
      > misunderstanding of the dynamics of the NT
      > narratives.
      > I notice that Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh in
      > 'Social-Science
      > Commentary on the Gospel of John' p.44?46 explain
      > why they use 'Judean'
      > throughout.
      > Ross Saunders
      > Sydney
      >
      >
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail
      > johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
      > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail
      johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
      a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
    • diadem
      Thanks for your response, Leonard Maluf. John 4:22 actually works very well when you take into account the way people identified themselves. What Jesus said to
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for your response, Leonard Maluf.
        John 4:22 actually works very well when you take into account the way
        people identified themselves. What Jesus said to the Samaritan woman
        was, 'Salvation is from those who belong to the land of Judea (and not
        from those who belong to the land of Samaria).' Both these people shared
        the same race: they both originated from the Hebrew people. In our
        current usage, they were both 'Jews'. But God's plan of salvation
        involved those who belonged to the tribes of Judah and belonged to the
        land of Judah where the temple was. Thus I believe that the word
        'Judean' works much better than 'Jew'.
        Most diaspora Hebrews regarded themselves as belonging to Judea. Paul
        did not call himself a 'Tarsian', even though he took pride in coming
        from this 'no mean city'. Paul calls Peter 'a Judean' in Gal. 2:14, even
        though Peter was originally a Galilean. However, from the time Peter
        became a disciple of Jesus he actually moved to Jerusalem, having given
        up his role as inheriting head of his father's household. He is thus now
        a 'Judean'.
        I suspect that most references to people being 'Judeans' will be a
        statement of their identity—of the place to which they belong—rather
        than of their race.
        I still hold that 'Judean' is a better translation since it is capable
        of a fairly wide interpretation, whereas the word 'Jew' is restrictive
        the way we use it today, and can lead to anti-Judaism and a
        misunderstanding of the dynamics of the NT narratives.
        I notice that Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh in 'Social-Science
        Commentary on the Gospel of John' p.44?46 explain why they use 'Judean'
        throughout.
        Ross Saunders
        Sydney
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 2/9/2001 1:45:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, diadem@netaus.net.au writes:
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 2/9/2001 1:45:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          diadem@... writes:

          << Thanks for your response, Leonard Maluf.
          John 4:22 actually works very well when you take into account the way
          people identified themselves. What Jesus said to the Samaritan woman
          was, 'Salvation is from those who belong to the land of Judea (and not
          from those who belong to the land of Samaria).' Both these people shared
          the same race: they both originated from the Hebrew people. In our
          current usage, they were both 'Jews'.>>

          Jews and Samaritans are considered to be racially related, but are they not,
          even in current usage, distinguished as, on the one side, "Jews," and, on the
          other, "Samaritans?" Why does the woman in 4:9 think that Jesus is a Judean?
          Is it not more probable that she was envisioned by the author to have
          detected, by some peculiarities of Jesus' speech, that he was a Jew from
          Galilee?

          << But God's plan of salvation
          involved those who belonged to the tribes of Judah and belonged to the
          land of Judah where the temple was. Thus I believe that the word
          'Judean' works much better than 'Jew'.>>

          Does the statement not also imply that the Samaritan religion was a corrupt
          descendant of the true Judaism (as a religion), with an admixture of paganism?

          << Most diaspora Hebrews regarded themselves as belonging to Judea. Paul
          did not call himself a 'Tarsian', even though he took pride in coming
          from this 'no mean city'. Paul calls Peter 'a Judean' in Gal. 2:14, even
          though Peter was originally a Galilean. However, from the time Peter
          became a disciple of Jesus he actually moved to Jerusalem, having given
          up his role as inheriting head of his father's household. He is thus now
          a 'Judean'.>>

          I hardly think it was Peter's move from Galilee to Judea that Paul had in
          mind when he referred to Peter as a "Ioudaios." The rest of the verse makes
          very little sense on your hypothesis: was Peter living like a "Judean," when
          he withdrew from table-fellowship with Gentile Christians in Antioch? And
          does Paul accuse him, in the same sentence, of trying to force people to
          become "Judeans"? In Gal 2:15, Ioudaioi are contrasted with Gentiles (=
          sinners!), not with Samaritans or Galilaeans. Judeans versus Gentile sinners
          doesn't make a very meaningful contrast.

          << I suspect that most references to people being 'Judeans' will be a
          statement of their identity—of the place to which they belong—rather
          than of their race.>>

          What about their religion? Shouldn't that be factored in as well?

          << I still hold that 'Judean' is a better translation since it is capable
          of a fairly wide interpretation, whereas the word 'Jew' is restrictive
          the way we use it today, and can lead to anti-Judaism and a
          misunderstanding of the dynamics of the NT narratives.>>

          I think this might be true in a few cases, but not in most. Also, I don't see
          how the word "Jew" is more "restrictive" than "Judean." I would think exactly
          the opposite is the case. That the use of the word "Jew" can lead to
          anti-Judaism is unfortunate, if true, but the down side of making political
          correctness the basis of translation is only too well illustrated by the
          difficulties that result from attempting to translate Ioudaioi, throughout
          the NT, as "Judeans."

          Leonard Maluf
        • Piet van Veldhuizen
          About the common origin of Jews and Samaritans: Personally I believe that they share a common origin, but many Jews in John s time did not believe so, or did
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 9, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            About the common origin of Jews and Samaritans:
            Personally I believe that they share a common origin, but many Jews in
            John's time did not believe so, or did not want to believe so. They based on
            2 Kings 17,24-41, and held that the five foreign ethnic groups deported into
            the Samaria region by the Assyrians were the actual origin of the Samaritans
            of Jesus' days. That is why the Samaritans, as Josephus tells us, used to be
            called Cutheans by the Jews.
            I hold that John by telling the story of the Samaritan woman in terms of the
            wooing stories of Genesis 24 and 29 (about finding a bride in faraway land
            which at the same time is not foreign, but ancestral ground) shows that he
            holds Jews and Samaritans to share a common offspring, but this in itself
            might be a polemical stand against those Jewish circles that denied the
            Isrealite identity of the Samaritans.

            Greetings,
            Piet van Veldhuizen
            Rotterdam
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.