Who Were the ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ?

Who Were the ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ?Author(s): Malcolm LoweSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 18, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 101-130Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560764 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 21:38

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.85 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:38:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560764?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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 commentators 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 connexion 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 indiscriminately of 'the Jews' and 'the Pharisees', probably with no clear knowledge 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 meanings. 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 geographical sense could conceivably mean simply the inhabitants of the province or kingdom of Judea, wherever its boundaries happened 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 determined, 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 administrative 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 apparently 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 somewhat 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).




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 corresponding 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 himself; 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 kingdom (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 according 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 interpretation 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.




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).




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 accounts 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,




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, generations 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 contrasted 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 approximately 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).



Documents

Who Were the ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ?