[dropcap type=”circle” color=”#66a3bf”]T[/dropcap]
hroughout Christian history, the Gospel of John has stood among the most favorite books of the Bible, alongside perhaps only the Psalms, Isaiah and the book of Romans. This gospel has also been a source of debate. One of the main reasons for this is its “anti-Jewish” rhetoric. The problem here is that the harsh words to “the Jews” were not addressed to a particular Jewish group as in other Gospels. After all, harsh rhetoric is also present in the so-called “most Jewish” of all the four gospels, the gospel of Matthew (Matt. 23) and is consistent with the standards of speech that were acceptable for the Israelite prophetic tradition (Is.1:2-4). However, in Matthew, as well as in Mark and Luke, in most cases it can be clearly seen that Jesus argued with Jewish groups like Scribes and Pharisees, but not with all Jews. It is peculiar that only in the Gospel of John is the un-nuanced “the Jews” (in most English translations) used repeatedly, usually referring to the opponents of Jesus who were often seeking to kill him (5:18; 7:1-10; 8:1-22, 8:40; 10:29-33; 11:8; 18:14; 18:28). Most-strikingly, it is to “the Jews” who initially followed him in this Gospel alone that Jesus said: “Your belong to your father, the devil.” (8:31) So, are Christian Bibles translating the Greek words “Hoi Iudaioi” accurately as “the Jews” in today’s sense of the word?
It looks like the Gospel author is operating within a context of intra-Jewish factional dispute, although the boundaries and definitions themselves are part of that debate. It is beyond doubt that once the Fourth Gospel is removed from that original context, and the constraints of that context, it could and was easily read as an anti-Jewish polemical document. However, the difficulty, with this Gospel, is not that it is the most “Anti-Jewish” Gospel, when it comes to the rhetoric used, but that it is also most Jewish of all the four gospels as well. For example, it is only in this Gospel, that Jesus says that “Salvation is from the Jews” (Jn.4:22) and that Jesus was buried as a Jew (Jn.19:40). So, yes as you can see, it’s complicated.
One example that illustrates the insufficiency of today’s terminology to understand the context surrounding the Gospel of John can be seen in John 11:53-54. There we are told that upon a threat on his life, Jesus withdrew to a village called Ephraim for fear of the people the author calls – Hoi Iudaioi:
“So from that day on they plotted to take his life. Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the Jews. Instead he withdrew to a region near the desert, to a village called Ephraim, where he stayed with his disciples.”
From this text it is clear that unless we acknowledge we are currently operating with labels and categories that were foreign to the evangelist, we cannot possibly make sense of the use of the term “the Jews” in this Gospel. Think about it, if we continue to interpret this Gospel using traditional translation terminology, this verse would totally confuse us: The “Jewish” Jesus moved away from “the Jews,” into a “Jewish” village Ephraim, with his “Jewish” disciples.
Our point is simple: the Bible does not need to be re-written, but it needs to be re-read.
To receive more information about learning Biblical Languages with Hebrew University of Jerusalem/eTeacher Biblical program online at affordable cost, please, click here.
© By Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Ph.D.
To sign up for weekly posts by Dr. Eli, please, click here. It is recommend by Dr. Eli that you read everything from the begining in his study of John. You can do so by clicking here – “Samaritan-Jewish Commentary”.
“if we continue to interpret this Gospel using traditional translation terminology, this verse would totally confuse us: The “Jewish” Jesus moved away from “the Jews,” into a “Jewish” village Ephraim, with his “Jewish” disciples.”
This is so obvious, yet so much a part of the Christian reading. So I wonder if the problem lies with Christianity dejudaizing all of the “good guys”?
[…] how hoi Ioudaioi (translated normally as “the Jews”) are clearly portrayed as not simply Judeans, but as the members of Judean authorities. They were […]
[…] he came to the feast hoi Ioudaioi did not recognize him. Either Jesus’ looks were so “average” that people could not tell him […]
Very interesting article.
I’m thinking that one must read this with the mind of the writer and not with a 2013 mindset, and submit oneself to the direction of the Holy Spirit who will make all things clear.
[…] is surprising, as we carefully read the text, is not that hoi Ioudaioi objected to Jesus’ words – but to which words in particular did they object? Notice, that it […]
[…] a careful reader wonder. Jesus was in Jerusalem in John 5, but by the time he finishes his talk with hoi Ioudaioi by the very beginning of chapter 6 we find that he was already on one of the shores of Galilean Sea, […]
The problem inherent in this issue is at what point does Jesus become a Christian? Or Abraham, or David etc. And by extension, at what point do they become Muslim, Protestant, Mormon, or whichever tradition adopts them.
And it is worth considering when looking at John 8, that “the Jews” accuse Jesus of being a Samaritan, which is exactly the same form of name calling.
Yes. Some even though that perhaps John’s Gospel (since Jesus does not reject the accusation of being Samaritan there, while rejecting the accusation that he has a demon) is of Samaritan origin. I do not think that this is true, I simply think that the Gospel sought to reach an audience where Samaritans were a dominant group. That is a settle difference.
But equally “the Jews” do not reject the accusation that the devil is their father. Which following your logic would suggest that the gospel was written for an audience of devils.
Which brings us back to the inherent name calling within this passage of the Bible, which is perhaps understandable given that the story being told is of “the Jews” trying to trap Jesus.
You yourself engage in this to a degree with your reference to the ‘”Jewish” Jesus’, which in one sense is a statement of the mortal nature of Jesus the man, in opposition to the Christian teaching of his role within the trinity.
Which brings me back to my more substantive point regarding the adoption of Biblical figures within differing religious traditions. Because the Christian Jesus is clearly different from the Jewish or Muslim Jesus, and the Catholic Jesus is different from the Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witness’ for example.
In modern terms this becomes problematic because of ‘political correctness’. As “the Jews” in John, in the literal historical sense are Jews, but they are equally Methodists, Buddhists, Atheists, Catholics, Anglicans, Unitarians, Orthodox, or whoever, to someone of a differing tradition.
But equally “the Jews” do not reject the accusation that the devil is their father. Which following your logic would suggest that the gospel was written for an audience of devils.
A.: My logic had nothing to do with John 8, please, see introduction section (http://iibsblogs.wpengine.com).
Which brings us back to the inherent name calling within this passage of the Bible, which is perhaps understandable given that the story being told is of “the Jews” trying to trap Jesus.
A.: 🙂
You yourself engage in this to a degree with your reference to the ‘”Jewish” Jesus’, which in one sense is a statement of the mortal nature of Jesus the man, in opposition to the Christian teaching of his role within the trinity.
A.: Not at all. Christian teaching about Trinity does not in any way reject his manhood as a Jew.
Which brings me back to my more substantive point regarding the adoption of Biblical figures within differing religious traditions. Because the Christian Jesus is clearly different from the Jewish or Muslim Jesus, and the Catholic Jesus is different from the Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witness’ for example.
A.: Yes. But I think they are still legitimate as long as we all understand that those things are meant to highlight certain points, aspects, perspectives, etc and are not part of conclusive/final definitions.
In modern terms this becomes problematic because of ‘political correctness’. As “the Jews” in John, in the literal historical sense are Jews, but they are equally Methodists, Buddhists, Atheists, Catholics, Anglicans, Unitarians, Orthodox, or whoever, to someone of a differing tradition.
A.: See my previous point. Thanks for your comments. Is Eeore your first name?
I also read with great fascination what Dr Eli has to say. Its educational. Today the areas of Samaria is not really called that it is called Yehyda ve Shomron. Judea and Samarea. As I stated in previous post people in the time of Yeshua called by name of the residence. We know who was The Galilean because of Nazareth that was in Galilee. Like some one today is called Texan because they are from Texas. So people from Judea called Judeans but in other languages they summed all of them in to Jews. Even the Samarians who lived in Judea.
You are pointing out important things. But its far more complex than what you make it to be. Let’s keep on thinking together. Dr. Eli
[…] their strong negative language, expressing their intent to kill him, be explained? We read that hoi Iudaioi (normally translated as “the Jews”) sought to kill Jesus (vs.18). It is known that in […]
[…] is named here as ruler of the Hoi Iudaioi. While we cannot know this for sure, it is probable that Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, […]