Re: [John_Lit] Jews again
- Nice try! But I still would like to present some facts
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
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
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.
A graduate student from Indonesia.
--- diadem <diadem@...> wrote:
> Thanks for your response, Leonard Maluf.email@example.com
> 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
> I notice that Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh in
> Commentary on the Gospel of John' p.44?46 explain
> why they use 'Judean'
> Ross Saunders
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
- In a message dated 2/9/2001 1:45:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
<< 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
<< 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
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."
- 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.
Piet van Veldhuizen