Who Were the Ioudaioi

8/11/2019 Who Were the Ioudaioi

1/31

Who Were the ?

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: 13/09/2014 00:46

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 of

content 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].

.

BRILLis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toNovum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 13 Sep 2014 00:46:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1560764?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1560764?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/31

Novum

Testamentum,

Vol.

XVIII,

fasc.

2

WHO WERE THE IOTAAIOI

BY

MALCOLM

LOWE

Van Leer

Foundation,

erusalem

The

meaning

f the word

'IouSoc"oL

n

John's

Gospel

has

long

been a puzzle. Although irtually ll modern ranslationsender

it

"Jews",

almost the

only point

of

agreement

etween com-

mentatorss

that

his annot n

general

e

its

meaning.

ccasionally

it has been

conjectured

hat t

means

"Judeans",

.e. that t

has

a

territorial ather han a

merely eligious

enotation,

nd this is

recognised

n the

Revised

tandard

Version

RSV)

to

the

extent

that "or

Judeans"

s

given

s an

alternativen a

note to

Jn

vii

I.

Sometimes

t

is

suggested

hat t

refers o the

Pharisees,

r more

specificallyo thoseJewswhorejectedJesus

).

It has even been

proposed

hat the term

must

be

some

symbolic

mode of reference

to the wicked

of

this

world

or something

f

the

kind),

o

that t

does not

essentially

efer

o the

Jews

t all

2).

Commentatorsend either o

force ne

of these

meanings pon

every

occurrence

f the

word,

or to

use

a

mixture f

different

possibilities

without

ttempting

o

establish

ny systematic

on-

nexion between the varietyofmeanings proposed. In neithercase

is

the result

convincing ).

1)

E. L.

ALLEN,

"The

Jewish

hristian hurch n

the

Fourth

Gospel",

JBL,

74

(1955),

88-92,

thinks that "the

Jews"

means the

leaders of the

Jewish

community,

ut as

representing

he

majority

who

rejected

Jesus

(yet

not

the

minority

who

accepted

him).

C. K.

BARRETT,

he

Gospel

according

o

St.

John

(I955),

thinks t

means

"Judaism

and its official

eaders"

whose

headquarters

were

in

Jerusalem

(p.

143),

but

alleges:

"John speaks

in-

discriminately

f

the

Jews'

and 'the

Pharisees',probably

withno

clear

know-

ledge

ofconditions n Palestine beforeA.D.

70o"

p.

299).

2)

Thus E.

GRASSER,

"Die

antijiidische

Polemik m

Johannesevangelium",

NTS XI

(1964-5), speaks

of

"ein

in

der

Auslegung

des

vierten

Evangeliums

unbestrittener

atbestand,

nimlich

die

Synonymitlt

der

Begriffe

Iou8sioq

and

x60aEo,"

(p.

88),

and

sums

up

(p.

89):

"Ein

Paradigma

also

fiir

ie

Offen-

barung

als

Krisis-so

k6nnten

wir

die

AuseinandersetzungJesu

mit

den

Juden

umschreiben. Denn

'Iou8Gaoq

und

x6ayoo0

ind

in

gleicher

Weise

Chiffren

iir

den

Unglauben

schlechthin."

3)

R. BULTMANN

pplies

the

symbolic

interpretation

ystematically

n

Das

Evangelium

des

Johannes IIth

ed.,

1950):

"Das

fiir

den

Evangelisten

This content downloaded from 130.216.158.78 on Sat, 13 Sep 2014 00:46:03 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/31

102

MALCOLM

OWE

This

paper

aims

to

showthat

the

puzzles

and

confusionre

due

not to

any peculiarities

f

usage

of the author

of

John's

Gospel,

butsimply o ourdistance rom heperiod bout whichhewrote.

It first

xplains, y

a

systematic

emantic

nalysis,

what

variety

of

meanings

might

be

anticipated

for

the word

'Iou80-Xo (and

its

Semitic

quivalents)

n

the

natural

veryday

sage

of

Palestine

n

the

period

f

Jesus.

Then t shows hat all

uses of

the word

n

the

four

ospels

re instances f one or

another f

these

variousmean-

ings.

t

also establishes hich

meanings

redominate

nd

why.

SEMANTICS AND

HISTORY

The

word

Iou80co0

s related to

the word

Io368

(Judah)

and

even more

closely

o

'Iousaox

Judea),

since

the

atter s

merely

its

feminine

ingular. Something

imilar

holds

for its

Semitic

equivalents.

n the

other

and,

oday

ts

only

meaning

s

"members

of

the

Jewish

eligion"

and

the word

ta'trm

n

modern

Hebrew

likewisehas no

territorial

onnotation).

We

may

thus

presupposethree asic

meanings

f the word:

(a)

"members f the

tribeof

Judah"

as

opposed

o members f

other

ribes;

charakteristische

0

Iou8xotL

fasst die

Juden

n

ihrer

Gesamtheit

zusammen,

so wie

sie

als Vertreterdes

Unglaubens

(und

damit

...

der

ungliubigen

'Welt'

iiberhaupt)

vom

christlichen

Glauben aus

gesehen

werden."

(p.

59).

He adds that on occasion,however, he representatives funbelief re 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 s

used

"imprecisely"

o

mean

usually

the

general

body

of

the

Jewish

people

or the

Jewish

authorities

n

Jerusalem,

hough

sometimes

apparently

the

inhabitants

of

Judea,

but that it

anyway

always

seems

to

mean the enemies

or

potential

nemies)

f

Christ.

According

o R. E.

BROWN,

Anchor

ible,

vol.

29

(1966),

p.

LXXI,

the term

normally

means

the

religious

authorities ostile

o

Jesus,

but

means

Jews

n

general

n

referenceo

national

and

religious

ustoms

&op-7

7v

'Iousalco,

etc.)

or

when

Jesus peaks

to

foreig-ners,while n a few ccurrencespossiblyn ater nsertions)tmeansJudeans.

Yet

I.

H.

BERNARD,

The

Gospel

according

to

St.

John

(1928),

vol.

I,

pp.

34-35,

thought

t

usually

meant

Judeans

and

especially

Jerusalemites,

ut

Jews

n

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

onviction.

None

of these

proponents

of a

variety

of

meanings

explains

how such a

variety

might

rise

(since

to

cite

supposedly

distinct

ources

only

postpones

solution of

the

problem,

s

it

may

then be

asked

why

precisely

hat

variety

occurs n the

various

sources).



4/31

WHO WERE

THE

IOTAAIOI?

0I3

(b)

"Judeans"

as

opposed

o

people

living

n

(or

originating

from)

ther

reas

4)

(notably

oth

Galileans

nd

Samaritans,

ifJudea s understoodn the strict ense

)

of the area west

of the

Jordan

etween

amaria

and

Idumea);

(c)

"Jews"

as

opposed

o members f other

religions

notably

Samaritans, omans,

Greeks).

At

the same time

'Iousco

need not

always

mean

"Judea

n

the

strict

ense"

(as just

defined),

ince

t

was

used

as an

official

itle

of

larger

administrative

units

6).

Thus

'Ious~doL

n a

purely

geo-

graphical ensecouldconceivablymeansimply he nhabitantsf

the

province

r

kingdom

f

Judea,

whereverts

boundaries

ap-

pened

to lie

7).

For the time

f

Jesus,

hree

elevant

ossible

enses

of

'Iouaoca

may

be

anticipated:

(I)

Judea

n the

strict

ense;

(2)

the

procurate

f

Pontius

Pilate

(i.e.

Judea

s

above

together

with

dumea

and

Samaria);

(3) thekingdom f Herod theGreat and thelast Hasmoneans

(i.e.

approximately

hewhole f

he

historic and of

srael)

8).

The

corresponding eanings

f

'IousacoL

may

be

designated

s

(bI),

(b2)

and

(b3) 9).

We

cannot,

however,

dequately

examine

the

meanings

of

'Iou8aXo

and

'

'Iou8oaoc

without

also

considering

he word

Iap

'?%,

which ccurs

widely

n

the

gospels

n the

meanings

the

People

of

Israel" (i.e. theJews, ometimes s olxoqIapa?) and "theLand

of

srael"

(in

Mt

i

21

as

yl

Iapa~x).

In

other

words,

his s

a

possible

4)

The

earliest

occurrence f

a

geographical

ense is

II

Ki xvi

6

(for

men

of

Judah"

as

opposed

o

the

inhabitants f

the

kingdom

f

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 han

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 o

collectively

as

"Iudaei",

apparently

because

they

were all

living

n

"Iudaea".

8)

The

occurrence

f the

same

name for

different

reas

in

the same

period

(and

even

the

same

writer)

hould not

cause

surprise:

today

"England"

is

often

used

for

"Britain"

and

"Holland" for

"the

Netherlands",

although

they

are

strictly

arts

of those

wholes.

9)

In

what

follows,

for

simplicity,

Judeans"

without

qualification

will

normally

mean

Judeans

in

the

strict

ense

(bi).



5/31

104

MALCOLM

LOWE

rival to both n theirwidest

enses.

t

could

tself lso

conceivably

refer

n

occasion

o

the

ancientnorthern

ingdom,

r to the

rem-

nantsof the northernribes

0).

Now of

the

possible

meanings

of

IouacoL,

the

strict

geographical

sense

(bI)

would have

much

relevance

or

Jews

n

Palestine

but

almostnone

for hose

n

the

Diaspora,

while

xactly

he reverse

s

true

for the

religious

meaning

c).

In

fact,

even

well

before he

New

Testament

eriod

Diaspora

Jews

began

to

accept

the

name

oi

Iou

tZoL

n

place

of

'IJpa-X

11),

whereas

the latter

persisted ong

enough

n

Palestine o be

virtually

he

only

elf-name f the

Jews

in theMishna

c.

200

A.D.) 12).

It

should

not be

thought,

owever,

hat the

geographical

enses

of

IouOZoL

quickly

died

out,

since

they

are

clearly

ttested

by

Josephus.

He

uses

the

wordto mean:

i)

"Judeans",

ometimesn

the

strict ense

nd sometimesn

thatof

nhabitantsf

the

province

of

Judea;

i)

"Jews"

whenever

here s a need

to

distinguish

etween

Jews

nd Gentiles

thus lways

for

Jews

n the

Diaspora);

moreover

he even uses the word in differentenses n the samepassage,

supposing

hat

the reader

an

easily

guess

the

correct ense from

10)

Lk ii

36

says

that

Anna the

prophetessbelonged

to Asher.

n

Susanna

(or

Daniel

xiii)

IJpa?X

occurs n both wider

and narrower

enses:

Susanna is

described first s a

daughter

of

Israel

(Sus

48),

but then as

not a

daughter

of

Israel

but a

daughter

of

Judah (Sus 57).

11)

A

difference etween

Palestinian

Jewish

and

Diaspora

Jewish

usage

seems

to be

already

attested

n

differencesetween

and

II

Maccabees.

Thus

the

relevant

section,

by

K.

G.

KUHN,

n

the article on

'Iapoc)

in

vol. III

(ed. G. KITTEL) of the TheologischesWarterbuch es Neuen Testaments

(pp.

360-366,

see

esp.

p.

362) suggests

that the latter

book uses

'Iou80CotL

freely

s

a

name

for the

Judeans

n

all

contexts,

but that the

former

ook

uses

'Ia

pocX

n

religious-national

ontexts and

'Iousakot

n

civil-administra-

ative

ones

(parallelling

*71Tfl7

n their

coins).

In

other

words,

Iapocrp

s

used

in

place

of

'Ious8cot

n

sense

(c),

so that the latter

has

normally nly

sense

(bI).

Even in I

Maccabees,

however,

non-Jews

re

represented

s

using

only

'Iou8otot.

(W.

GUTBROD's

ection 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 theMishna

?It'V

is thecommonrendering f "the

Jews"

and also

of

"Jews"

(Hallah 4.7.,

etc.)

and

"a

Jew" (Berachoth

8.8,

etc.

etc.).

There

s

also

WDI'?W

(Erubin

6.i,

Abodah

Zarah

4.11).

V111'1 occurs at

Nedarim

I

1.12

in

a

possibly

stereotyped

aying.

Otherwise

"T''r

occurs

only

in

the

quotation

of

Esther i

5

at

Megillah

2.3.

Sometimes

WVtZ'

eans

an

ordinary

Jew"

as

opposed

to

priests

Terumoth

1.9,

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

srael"

contrasted

.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).



6/31

WHO

WERE

THE

IOrAAIOI

?

I05

the context.Thereare

especially

wo kindsof

passage

n which

geographical

meaning

can be

recognized:

i)

ones in which ot

'IousMLoL

nd I 'IoustL occurtogethern such a way that the

former

re

precisely

the inhabitants of the latter

13);

(2)

ones in

which

'Iousc'to

are

contrasted

with

Jews

from ther areas of Pales-

tine

as

raochLoL,

tc.)

14).

The

meaning Judeans"

in

some

ense)

should

thus be considered

likelypossibility

henever

osephus

talks of

'IouscL-noL

n a

Palestinian ontext

5),

especially

s he has

no

other

ingle

wordfor he nhabitants f

Judea

or Palestine

6).

Even as late

as

the

early

third

entury,

io

Cassius

explicitly

distinguishes

etween

geographical

nd a

religious

meaning

f

'Iou8sooL;

moreover

e

treats he formers the basic sense

7).

That the

geographical

senses of

'IouAsXor

far

from

having

died

out,

ndeed

formed he

primary

meaning

fthe term n New

Testa-

ment

imes,

s

confirmed

y

the

surprising,

ut

well-attested,

elief

that

the

'IousmcoO

were

certain

Egyptians

or Indians who had

13)

An

example

is

J.Ant.

XVIII,

2.

Coponius

and

Quirinius

re

here

said

to have arrived in

ihv

Iouxda~

(or

`yv

'Iouoov;

in

any

case

Judea

in sense

(2)

is

intended),

he former o rule over

the

'IousooL

and the

atter

to

evaluate

their

property

or

taxation.

Here

it

is

precisely

he

inhabitantsof

the

procurate

presumably

amaritans as

well

as

Jews)

who

were to be ruled

and

taxed,

i.e. ot

Iou8saoL

n

meaning

b2).

14)

An

instructive

xample

is

J.

Ant.

XVII,

254

ff.

Josephus

states first

that

many

Galileans,

dumeans

and

people

from

Jericho

nd Perea

had

come

to

Jerusalem

to

celebrate

Pentecost,

where

they

were

joined by

ohol

'Iousa80oL.

ince all had

come

to a

Jewish

festival,

nd the

Jewish

reas of

Palestine

were

preciselyGalilee, Perea, Judea

and

Idumea, hoL Iou8sozothere

indisputably signifies

he

Judeans

n the trict ense

(bI).

Yet later nthe

same

passage

he

relates how

the Romans

attacked

the

'Iouso'ot,

now

meaning

the whole

crowd,

.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

nd

Pcao toL

pparentlybeing

contrasted:

n

the

Life

the

Galilean

Jews

are almost

nvariably

oL

ocr;LocoL;

ote also

Against

Apion

I,

48:

"those

whomwe call

rocxaLaoL").

16)

Unlike

Maccabees

and the

Mishna, Iapao

X

does not

occur

throughout

as

a name for

the

Jews

and their

and. The

explanation

s

that

although

a

Palestinian

Jew,

he was

explicitlywriting

orGentiles

gnorant

of the

Jews

(J.

Ant.

I,

5-13),

which

mplies

that the

geographicalmeanings

of

'Iou80c"ot

were familiar o literate

peakers

of

Greek n

general.

17)

At R. Hist.

XXXVII, xvi.5-xvii.I

he

says

of

Palestine that the

area

and its

inhabitants re also

called

'Iou8m0m

nd

'Iou8matot;

hen he adds that

the

latter name

is

also

applied

to all

else,

even of other nations

(&X;XoeOvez),

who adhere to their

customs

(r&

6tuLLo

rc~-ov,

.e. those of the

'IousxZoL

n

the

geographical sense).

Thus

he

distinguishes

etween our

meanings

(b3)

and

(c), regarding

he

latter as derived

rom

he

former.

Note

also

XLVII,

xxviii.3-4:

ot

'Iouso&0oL

as inhabitants of

7

'Iou8soc.



7/31

Io6

MALCOLM

LOWE

obtained

heir

urrent

ame

by emigrating

o

the

already

xisting

country

f

Judea.

n

Against

Apion

Josephus

makes

xtraordinary

effortso refute harges hatthe Iou8mZoLeremerely gyptians

who

had

been

driven ut of

their

wn

country

nto

Judea

(II,

8;

compare

I,

252) 18);

he also relates that

Aristotle,

ccording

to

the

latter's

pupil

Clearchus,

believed

the

Ioua'ZoL

to be

Indian

philos-

ophers

whohad

come

to

Judea

nd taken heir

new)

name

rom

hat

place

(I,

179:

o6vota

Xoc6v

res

n

705

T6=ou).

Some

awarenessof

the

connectionwith the

tribe of

Judah

nonethelessontinued.

hus

Pompeius rogus,

Hist.

Phil.

XXXVI,

ii.I-5

(in Justinus' pitome), ays

thatthe

Iudaei originate

rom

Damascus,

where

Abraham nd

Israel were

uccessively ing;

the

latterdivided

his

people

ntoten

kingdoms,

ne

to each of

his

sons,

but

then,

n the

premature

eathof

Judah, ave

them ll the

name

Iudaei

in his

memory.

osephus

tates

J.

Ant.

XI,

173)-probably

again

trying

o combat

misconceptions-that

he

people

and

the

land

(i.e.

o0

'Iou~aoZo

and

"

'Iouam21)

had

got

their current

name

becauseJudahwas the first ribe o return romxile.The Gemara

of the Talmud

at

Megillah

2b-I3a

seems till

to

be

well

aware

of

the

connexion

9).

Even in the ninth

century

sho'dad

of

Merv

repeats

Josephus' tory

about the return

rom xile in

a

more

elaborate form

perhapsderiving

rom

common

ource rather

than

from

osephus

imself)

0).

But

the

general icture

or

he New

Testament

eriod

s that he

primarymeaning

of

'IouasOcoL

was

geographical (in

a

sense which

18)

Compare

Strabo,

Geography

VI,

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

numerousGentile

authors.

Despite

Josephus'

efforts,

elsus

(acc.

to

Origen,

Against

Celsus

III,

5)

could

still

claim

that the

'Ioua'toL

were

'ALty6rTLoL

)

yVel.

19)

Puzzlement is

espressed

over

whetherMordechai

belonged

to

Judah

or to

Benjamin

(in

Esther ii

5

he

is

successively

described s

f'11Vl

t

and

"2

R).

Then

preposterous explanations

are offered f how

he

could

belongto both tribes at once; these are

probably

learned

okes,

presuming

awareness that

f'1l~l

might

n

principle

have

meaning a)

instead

of

meaning

(c).

(Humorous

commentaries n

Esther

are

a

Jewish

tradition.)

Note

that

in

the Mishna

Tiflf

means the

tribe of

Judah

at

Sotah 8.1 and

WTi 2

a

memberof

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.



8/31

WHO

WERE THE

IOrAAIOI?

IO7

might

e broader

r narrower

ccording

o

speaker

nd

to

context).

In

addition,

mongst

Gentiles nd

Diaspora

Jews

the

word had

alreadya secondary eligiousmeaning,whereasPalestinianJews

used

'IapohX

s a

self-name.

The

divergence

etween

Diaspora

and

Palestinian

Jewish

sage

leads

us to

divide

the New Testament

writings

hemselves nto

two

groups:

he

gospels since nly

heother

ospels

re

comparable

with

John's

Gospel

n

dealing

xclusively

ith vents n

Palestine)

and the remainder

which

argely

oncerns

vents

n the

Diaspora).

The

present nvestigation

will therefore eek

to

determine he

meanings

of

o0

'Iou)oTL, 'Iousaoco

nd

'Iapa~h

in the four

gospels.

So far

hree asic

meanings

f

'IousioL

have

been

distinguished.

But

a

greater

ariety

s

possible,

ince

any

nationality-word

as a

variety

of

stronger

nd

weaker senses.

f we

consider he word

"French"

n

modern

sage,

hen n

the

strictestense Frenchman

is someone

of

French descent

who lives

in

France,

s a French

citizen ndspeaksFrench.Butwemayalso call someone French"

in

a

weaker

ense

f he is

only

ome of these

hings

French

Cana-

dians,

naturalized

renchmen,

hildren

who

happened

o

be born

to

tourists

n

France,

Bretons).

We also

commonlypeak

of "the

French" to mean

the

French

government

r

its

representatives

(when hey ign

n

agreement

ith

the

Russians"),

or

the

French

authorities

when

the

French"

put

a

tourist

n

trialfor

motoring

offence).All threebasic

meanings

f

IouacloL

may

be

expected

o show

comparable

amificationsf

meaning.

ut the

three asic

meanings

are

also

themselves

losely

connected:

Judea

was

(originally)

roughly

he

historical

erritory

f the tribeof

Judah,

while even

non-Judean ews

were

at least

members f the

religion

f

Judea.

The latter

point

an be

appreciated y

recalling

wo

facts.

Firstly,

in

the

ancientMediterranean orld almost

every

people

had its

ownnationalreligion,o thatto be a member f thatreligionwas

in

a

sense to

have

that

nationality1).

Secondly,

s far as the

21)

This

was for

nstancemanifestedn

the

way

in

which

onquering

eoples

tended to

impose

some

part

of

their

religion

upon

conquered

peoples.

(The

Jews

suffered

specially

from

this

tendency,

nd

yet

the

Hasmonean con-

querers

themselves

also

followed

t.)

As

Cicero

puts

it,

in

contrasting

he

Romans

and the

recently onquered

Iudaei

(Pro

Flacco,

69):

"Sua

cuique

civitati

religio,

Laeli, est,

nostra nobis."



9/31

Io8

MALCOLM

LOWE

Gentiles

were concerned

Judaism

was

primarily

he

religion

f

Judea

2).

Indeed,

for

long

time

Judaism

was the

religion

merely

ofJudea n the strict ense,namelyduring he centuries rom he

fallof the

northern

ingdom

o the rise

of

the

Hasmoneans

and

of

course

he

religion

was

peculiarly

entered

pon

a

single emple

n

Judea)

23).

The

Jews

hemselves, owever,

ever

eased

to consider

that theirswas the

true

religion

f

the whole

Land of Israel

4).

So there s

a

natural wide

variety

of

possible

meanings

for

'Iou80)oL

in

the Palestine

of

Jesus'

time,

while

yet

all these

meanings

are

systematically

nterrelated.

Yet it is

not

enough

o

listvarious

meanings;

historical imen-

sion must

be

added. For somehow he word

'IoukcZot

eveloped

n

meaning

rom

stage

n

which

t had

only

enses

a)

and

(bI)

to

a

stage

n

which

t had

only

sense

c).

I

suspect

hat two

periods

were

decisive n the course

of

this

development.

he first

was the

period

about

a

century

efore he birth

of

Jesus

when the

Has-

moneansexpandedfrom ncientJudea to conqueralmostthe

whole

Land of

srael.

As each

new

rea was

annexed,

ts nhabitants

were

given

the choiceof

eaving

or

converting

o

Judaism

which

manydid).

So

by

the timeof

Jesus

herewas

a

situation

n which

22)

Thus when Suetonius

says

(Tib.

XXXVI)

that

in

Rome

Tiberius

abolished

"externas

caerimonias,

Aegyptios

udaicosque

ritus",

presumably

"Iudaicus"

no

less

than

"Aegyptius"

ncludes reference

o

a

specific ountry

(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

Corneliusof

Iudaei

("repetere

domos

suas

coegit"

acc.

to Paris'

epitome)

to

stop

their

prose-

lytising.

Moreover,

Dio

Cassius

(loc. cit.)

in

effect

ays

that

'Iou8MZto

n

the

religious

sense

are

those

of

any

nation

(even

&koe0sve,)

who

practice

the

customsof

the

people

(i.e.

Ovoq)

f

Judea

(in

his

sense

of the

latter). Compare

also

Cicero

n

the

preceding

note. One

may

well

wonder

whether

n the

period

of

Cicero-or

even

Josephus-"Iudaeus"

was

any

more

religious

erm

han

"Romanus",

"Aegyptius",

tc.

23)

Even

a

century

after the

Hasmonean

conquests,

Strabo

(Geography

XVI,

ii)

recognises

hem

with

reluctance: he defines

'Iou8al

as the

area

between

Phoenicia

(i.e.

the Palestinian

coastland)

and Arabia fromGaza

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

ettled around

Jerusalem

ii.35-7).

24)

Which

explains

why

the

Judeans

of

I

Maccabees called

themselves

'Iou8dxot

s citizens of the

ethnarchy

f

Judea (or

people

of

Judean

origin),

but

'Iapa-X

as a

national-religious

ntity.



10/31

WHO

WERE THE

IOTAAIOI?

IO9

(for

he

first

ime)

heword

'Iouscaio

in

ts

application

o

Palestine25)

would

pply

o

very

ifferent

anges

f

people

n senses

bI)

and

(c).

Nor needtheextensionftheword ohavemeaning b3) or (c)

have been

mmediaten

Palestine

tself,

s the term

oIxoq)

Iopoc'X

was

already

available to mean "the

Jews"

and remained n

use

there

until

much ater.

Moreover,

ven

when

non-Judean

onverts

began

to call themselves

'IouaaoL

the word

would

probably

have

retained connotation

f

Judea

n

the strict

ense,

ince

they

had

(in

the

sense

explained)

become members

f

the

religion

f

the

latter

rea.

The second decisiveperiodwould be theperiodofpersecutions

following

he Bar-Kochba

revolt,

whose

result

was to

eliminate r

expel

most of the

Jewish

population

f

Judea.

Thenceforth

he

Palestinian centreof

Judaism

was

Galilee,

so that

the

word

IouatoL

wouldmuch ess

frequently

eed

o

be

used

n

sense

bi). Eventually

this ensewould

die

out

(since

t

was no

onger

equired

n

Palestine

or

n

the

Diaspora). Possibly

here

was then n

intermediate

tage

in whichthe broadergeographicalense (b3)--'IouaoL meaning

"inhabitants

f

Palestine"-continued

o

survive

6).

Ultimately,

as Palestine

gradually

eased to

be looked

upon

as

the

homeof an

?0vo L6vIoutcov

27),

only

the

religious

ense

(c)

would remain

28).

Thus

semantics

nd

history rovide

n

extensive

ange

f

possible

everyday

uses of

'Iou~axoL

in

Palestine

in

Jesus'

time.

What is

therefore

equired

s

an examination

f all

occurrences

f

the word

in

the

gospels

to see whichof the

possibilities

s most

probably

involved n each case. The remainderf thispaper presents he

25)

There

were scattered

Jewish

communities

n

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).

major problem

s the extent o

which

hese

communities

were

evacuated

to

Judea

by

Simon

and

Judas

Maccabeus

(I

Maccabees

v

23, 45),

and

in

particular

he

corresponding

xtent

of forced

onversion

n

Galilee after ts

reconquest

(an

event skimmedover

by Josephus).

26)

Yet

Palestinian

Jews

could still

speak

of

Judea

in

the old

strict

ense

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 s

the

fact,

noted

by

T.

REINACH

(Textes

relatifs

u

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

n

Greek

authors.



11/31

IIO

MALCOLM

LOWE

results

of

such

a

survey

n

systematic

orm

but

starting

with

'lapa~X

and

1

'Iousoat).

We shall see that theeverydaymeaningsuffice,o thatthere s

no need to

see

in

John's

Gospel

ome fantastic

llegorical

meaning

of the word

though

ts

author

may

have intended

o

convey

n

allegorical

message

oo).

ISRAEL

As

a

start,

he

meaning

f

this term

may

be determined.

ere

Matthew's

Gospel

s

especially elpful:

t defines

he

term

learlyin

respect

oth of area andof

people,

ince

Joseph

went o Galilee

when

told

in

dreams

o

go

to

y-

'Iapa~X

but

not to

go

to

Judea

(Mt

ii

I9-23),

while

Jesus

told his

disciples

to

go

neither o Samari-

tans

nor to Gentilesbut

only

to

the

lost

sheep

of

o~xoq

'IapocX

(Mt

x

5-6).

In other

words,

IcpacxX

eans

here

he wholeLand of

Israel

(including

udea

as well

as the ancient

northern

ingdom)

or

precisely

he

Jews

(as

opposed

to Samaritans nd

Gentiles).

The word occurswidely n one or otherofthese two senses n

Matthew

nd

Luke,

though

ther

ossible

meanings

annot

lways

be

so

decisively

xcluded,

and

twice

n Mark

9).

Particular are s

needed

n

examining

he occurrences

n

John's

Gospel

n view of its

suggested

amaritan

origin 0).

There s

no

evidence,

owever,

f

any

deviation

rom he

meanings

f

'IpapcX

defined n

Matthew. hus

when

Jesus

s said to have been

greeted

as

"King

of srael"

on

entering erusalemJn

xii

13),

thereference

is

certainly

o thewholeLand of sraeland not

merely

he ancient

northern

ingdom.

or

firstly

he crowd

s

said

to have come

to

Jerusalem

or the Passover

(Jn

xii

12),

thus

they

subscribed o

29)

See Mt

ii

6,

viii

10,

ix

33,

x

23,

xv

24,

31,

xix

28, xxvii

42;

Lk i

16,

54,

68,

80o,

i

25,

32,

34,

iv

25,

27,

Vii

9,

xxii

30,

xxiv

21

(also

olxoq

'Iaxc4p,

Lk

i

33).

In Luke the context

s often

Judean,

ruling

out

the

possibility

hat

merely

thenorthern rea is involved. Some of these occurrences re ratherpoetical,

but

a sufficient umber

are

not.

Note

also

Lk xvii

15-18: Jesus

called the

Samaritan

a

"foreigner"

&XXoyev+q).

ark 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

f the

Gospel

of

John"

n

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

uch an

origin

for

John's Gospel. (Its

format,

however,

owes a considerable

debt to advice

from Professor

BUCHANAN.)



12/31

WHO WERE THE

IOTAAIOI?

III

the wider

ense

of

srael;

secondly hey

ame out to welcome

him

on

account of

what

they

had

heard

from he

'Ioul'xoL

who

had

witnessed heraising fLazarus

31);

and thirdlyt is added that

this fulfilled

he

prophecy Zech

ix

9):

"Fear

not,

daughter

f

Zion;

behold

yourking..."

This last is

particularlyignificant,

since

t shows

hat

the author f

John's

Gospel

himself

nderstood

Israel

here

o

include

Jerusalem.

Moreover,

when

Jesus

addressed

Nicodemus

the

Jerusalemite

Pharisee and member

f

the

Sanhedrin)

2)

as "the

teacher

of

Israel"

(Jn

ii

Io),

the

referenceannotbe

to the

northernribes

alone, and Nicodemuswould

presumably

ave understood he

word o

mean

precisely

he members f the

Jewish

eligion

to

the

exclusion

f

Samaritans).

There s no evidence hat

Jesus

himself

meant

anything

lse.

Since,

however,

John's

Gospel

nowhere

reports

Jesus

explicitly

o have

excluded

the

Samaritans

from

Israel,

a

Samaritan

reader would be at

liberty

o

suppose

that

Jesus

did

not

mean

exactly

what Nicodemus

might

ave

thought.

In otherwords, hisgospelhas no instance f thetermIapa

X

33)

which

s

in

conflictwith

Jewish

sage

(as

attested

n

Matthew),

but lsonone

whichwould f

necessity

ave offended

amaritans

4).

JUDEA

Above

there

were

distinguished

hree

enses

f

"Judea"

relevant

to the

gospels.

We

may

attempt

o

establish

which ense

of the

word

s

meant

n

its various

occurrencess

follows:

f

Judea

ap-

31)

See

Jn

xii

17-18

and ch.

xi

passim.

These

'Iou8c0oL

were

probably

all

Judean

friends nd

relatives of

Lazarus,

as

they

had

come to mourn him

immediately

fter

his

death;

they

would

certainly

have

understood srael

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 srael

may

be considered

o

state

the standard view of

the

Pharisaic

school

(as

creators

of

the

Mishna).

33)

The

other wo cases in

John i 31, 49)

are less

clearcut,

but

are not

such

as to

suggest

hat

anything

lse is meant thanin 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,

he

implication

f

Jn

ii

io

and

xii

13

is that

"Israelite" here

means

"Jewish

inhabitant of the

Land of

Israel",

although

once

again

a

Samaritan

reader

could

suppose

himselfnot 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

xemplify

t)

is

at least

evenhanded: "For

I

have bent

Judah

as

my

bow;

I

have

made

Ephraim

its arrow."

(Zech

ix

13

in

the

RSV).



13/31

112

MALCOLM

OWE

pears

in

a

given

context

as

contrastedwith

both

Samaria

(or

Idumea)

and

Galilee,

t

may

be

supposed

hat

Judea

n

the

strict

sense is meant;while f it is contrastedmerelywithGalilee (or

Perea),

then either

ense

(I)

or

sense

(2)

is

meant nd

additional

clues

are

needed

o

determinehe

matter.

John's

Gospel

ppears

o

speak

of

Judea

only

n

the

strict

ense.

Thus

at

Jn

v

3-4

it

is said that

Jesus

had

to

go

through

amaria

in

order o return

rom

Judea

to

Galilee,

o

obviously

he

strict

sense is

meant. Since the

occurrences

n

iii

22

35),

v

47

and

54

are

connectedwith

the same

journey,

t

presumably

means

Judea

n

the strict ense n thesecasestoo (Galilee s

certainly

xcluded n

iv

47,

54).

The

occurrences

n

Jn

vii

I,

3

and xi

7

suggest

Judea

in

the

strict ense

n

view of

their

onnexions

ith he mention

f

'IousoatoL

n

Jn

vii

I,

2

and xi

8;

moreover

Jn

vii

I

and

3

exclude

Galilee

and

Jn

xi

7

excludesPerea.

Matthew nd Mark

follow

he same

usage

as

far

s can

be

deter-

mined,

though

occasionallymeaning

(2)

cannot

be

absolutely

excluded.ThusBethlehem fJudea (Mt ii I, 5) is Bethlehem f

Judah

(as

Mt ii

6)

by

contrastwith

Bethlehem

f

Zebulon.

n

Mt

ii

20-22

Joseph

went to

live

in

Galilee as

opposed

to

Judea

(which

probably

xcludes

Samaria,

as he

would not

have

chosen

to

live

there

anyway).

n

Mt

iii

I

John

the

Baptist

was in

the

Judean

desert,

while n

Mt

ii

5

Judea

s at

least

distinguished

rom

Perea

(and

the

ess

explicit

ut

parallel

Mk

5

may

be

interpreted

in

the same

sense).

Mt

iv

25

and Mk iii

7

variously distinguish

JudeafromGalilee, dumea,Perea,Phoenicia nd the

Decapolis.

Comparing

Mt

xix

I

with

Mk

x

I

suggests

hat the

text

of

the

former

s

wrong,

o

that both

distinguish

udea

from

Galilee

and

Perea

36).

Finally,

he

GreatTribulation

was

apparently upposed

35)

Here

most

probably

meaning

the

Judean

countryside

s

opposed

to

Jerusalem

perhaps

thus also Mt iii

5,

Mk i

5

and

other

passages

where

both

Jerusalem

and

Judea

are

mentioned). Similarly,

n

the

Mishna Judea iscontrastedwithboth Galilee and

Jerusalem

t Ketuboth

4.12.

36)

Mt xix i

implies

a

sense of

Judea

which ncludes

Perea

but

excludes

Galilee;

this is

odd,

as at

that

time

Galilee

and Perea

were a

single

dminis-

trative

unit

under

Herod

Antipas,

while

Judea

was

governed

by

Pilate.

Most

probably

one of the

variant

readings

at

Mk

x

i

is the

correct ne here

too.

Ptolemy's

ater

classification

f

Perean

cities

under

Judea

(Geography

,

xvi.9;

here

"Judea

east of

the

Jordan"

s

apparently

his

name

for

Perea)

at

most

reflects

he

mid-second

entury

ituation,

f t

is not

a device

of his own

invention.

.

W. G. MASTERMAN

"Judaea"

in

Int.

Standard

Bible

Enc.,

rev.

ed., 1955)

cites

Josephus,J.

Ant.

XII,

228-236

in

support

of

Ptolemy,

but



14/31

WHO

WERE THE

IOTAAIOI?

II3

to

fall

principally upon

Judea

in the

strict sense

37),

so that

this

is the

meaning

f

"Judea"

in

the

parallel

versesMt xxiv

16,

Mk

xiii 14

and Lk xxi

21.

Luke, however,

eparts

from he strict

sage

of

"Judea".

His

calling

Herod the Great and Pilate

respectively

King

of

Judea"

(Lk

i

5)

and

"Governor f

Judea"

(Lk

iii

I)

might

e

discounted,

as

these

if

ndeedhe means

Judea

n

a

wider

ense)

could be

just

official itles.But there

emain hree

assages

wherehe

uses

MR=a

'Iouoc'oc

or

ghX

7

'Iouaocl apparently

to mean the

whole Land

of

Israel,

or

perhaps

ather he

parts

of

t

inhabited

y

Jews

8).

Thus

inLk vii 11-17Jesus aised hewidow's onfromhedead at Nain

(firmly

dentified s

near

Nazareth),

whereupon

is

fame

spread

"through

the

whole of

Judea"

39).

Comparing

Lk

vi

17

with

the

in

fact Perea is here

said

(233)

to

lie

between

udea

and

Arabia.

Ptolemy,

on

the other

hand,

makes the

Arabian desert

begin

mmediately

o

the

east of

Judea

"as defined"

(Geography

,

xix.

I)-the

province

as

from

105

A.D.

37)

Thus

when

Matthew

reaches

he

coming

f

the Son of

Man,

he

apparent-

ly

alludes

(Mt

xxiv

30:

xloc

6e

x6

ovr7a

~anL

act

puhXmiT

y)

to

Zechariah

xii 12

(Septuagint: xoc x6evocL7 y7"xocau& hX&q uX)&; the

cpua

are those of

David, Nathan,

Levi, etc.,

.e.

'

yij

here

means "the

land"),

which

occurs n

a

passage

concerning

n 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

n

Judea

to

flee

when

Jerusalem

s attacked

(Luke

explicitly,

Matthew

and Mark in

terms

of

the

"desolating

sacrilege").

38)

The

latter s

suggested

by

Acts

i 8

(where

Samaria is

excluded).

Pliny

similarly

makes Galilee

and

Perea

parts

of

Judea

(though xcluding

dumea

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

nnovation

here

s

my

suggestion

that Luke

uses an

ampliative

adjective

to

distinguish

he

wider

sense rather

than

introduces

t

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

occurredwell

outside

Judea

in the

strict

ense. There

is thus no

reason

why

the event shouldhave caused a stirprecisely n thislatterarea.

On

Nain see

e.g.

KRAELING

n

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

n

many

details

(p.

13,

etc.),

though

without

he

resulting

nconsistencies

xceeding

he

norm

for

good

ancient

historians

p. i1).

But the

placename

n

Josephus

s

almost-

certainly

Ain:

it

is

the

preferred

eading

t

511

and aiam is the

Latin

reading

in

both

cases;

moreover

f7*

"spring")

occurs

n

many

Hebrew

placenames,

whereas

Nain

in

517

could be

a

scribal

error

nduced

by

the Lukan

story.

8



15/31

114

MALCOLM

LOWE

parallel

Mt

iv

25

and

Mk iii

7

suggests

hat "all

Judea"

in that

verse

ums

up

the

various

parts

ofthe

Land of

srael

mentioned

y

Matthew nd Mark

0).

Whileat Lk xxiii 5 Pilate was toldthat

Jesus

"stirs

up

the

people,

teaching hrough

he

whole

of

Judea,

and

havingbegun

from

Galilee

up

to

here"

(where

ilate

would

t

least

have

understood

he

whole

of

his

protectorate,

hough

his

informants ore

ikely

meant

Jesus'

ong

walk

through

most of

the

Jewish

reas;

note also

Acts

x

37,

whichomits

"and"

after

"Judea").

Yet when

Luke

speaks

of

4

'Iouscoc

without

dding

he

adjectives

7r(ao(

r 65Xhe seems to meanJudea n the strict ense, o that

those

adjectives

perhaps

signify

conscious

eparture

rom

he

basic sense

1).

Thus

"the hill

country

f

Judea"

(Lk

i

65)

means

Judea

proper the

hill

country

f

Samaria

was

not

populated

by

Jews;

compare

lso

Lk i

39

"into

the

hill

country,

o a

city

of

Judah")

42).

At Lk

ii

4

Judea

xcludes

Galilee

and

ncludes

ethle-

hem).

The

reading

Iousotoc

t

Lk

iv

44

is not

wholly

certain

(rocXthocaccursquitewidelyn themanuscripts);t can also be

explained

as

hinting

t a

visit to

Jerusalem

or some

feast.At

Lk

v

17

Pharisees

re said to

have

come from

Galilee and

Judea

(where

he

latter

thereforelso

excludes

Samaria,

which

had

no

Pharisees).

k

xxi

21 has

already

been

discussed.

In

short,

'Iouaoctoc

eans

Judea

n

the strict

ense

throughout

the

gospels

3),

except

where

uke

makes

what

may

be a

conscious

departure

rom

his

usage.

40)

Thus

whereasLuke

mentions

all

Judea"

and

Jerusalem

nd

Phoenicia,

Mark mentions

Galilee,

Judea,

Jerusalem,

dumea,

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

n

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,

rofessor avid

FLUSSER

has

pointed

out tomethat

)1

peLti

must

here

mean the

toparchy

mentioned

by

Pliny

(as

"Orinen",

Nat.

Hist.,

loc.

cit.),

.e.

a

comparatively

mall

area

centered

upon Jerusalem.

This also

accords

with

Zechariah's

serving

s a

priest

n

the

temple.

Pliny

lists

this

toparchy

s

merely

ne of

the ten

parts

of

Judea

in

the

strict

ense;

a

some-

what

larger

rea is

indicated

by

Shebiith

9.2:

the

three ands of

the

"bicur"-

Judea,

Perea and

Galilee

(as

Ketuboth

13.10o,

aba

Bathra

3.2)-have

each

three

parts,

fli

is

one

part

of

Judea.

43)

As

in

the

Mishna

(compare

preceding

note),

where

Judea

is

explicitly

contrastedwith

Galilee in

almost

every

occurrence.



16/31

WHO

WERE

THE

IOTAAIOI?

115

AREAS

AND

COMMUNITIES

Besidesthe

terms

lready ariously

mentioned,

here lso

occurs

the term

PahXhLoo

meaning Galilean")

4).

This is significantn

that

it

enables

us

to

complete

he

following

cheme

of

relations

between areas and

communities)

hat

is

presupposedby

the

evangelists:

Yi

IapocX

(o xo4)

IapodTX,Ipo-?&q

Land of srael

(House

of)

Israel,

sraelite

Galilee Galilean

'Iou~o0oc

) 'IousOCZoS

Judea

?

The

question-mark

s

to be

replaced

with whateverwe think

should

orrespond

o

Judea.

But it has

ust

been een

that

"Judea"

is

normally

meant

n

the

strict

ense

by

the

evangelists.

nd

just

as in

the

other

ases,

they

would

need

a

wordto

signify person

from hisarea; and the appropriateword would be 'IousLcoq. o

thiswould

ccur

with

he

meaning Judean"

n

ordinary

alestinian

usage

of the

period

45).

Thus n

order o

say "person

rom

udea"

the

evangelists

ould

have used

Iouasaoq or

its

Semitic

quivalents).

We now have to

determine

ow

often

the

converse

s

true,

.e.

how

often

they

meant

Judean"

when

hey

wrote

Iou~cXo4.

THE FEASTS OF THE IOTAAIOI

Five times

n

John's

Gospel

there

occur

the

phrases op'T

rirv

'Iou3oLov

Jn

v

I,

vi

4,

vii

I)

or

n'7yX

rjv

'Iouocucov

Jn

i

13,

xi

55),

which

are

unquestioningly

ranslated

the

Feast/Passover

f he

Jews".

The

presence

f

the

appendage

rv

'Iou~oaov

s

sometimes

explained

s

intended

o avoid

confusion

ith he Christian

GicX,

i.e.

Easter

as

f

there ouldbe

an

Easter

before he

Resurrection ),

orpossibly ome Christianariant fthe Passovermeal

6).

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"

AgainstApion

I,

48)

implies

"and not

'IoukZiot".

46)

On

various

hypotheses

see R. E.

BROWN,

Anchor Bible, vol.

29,

esp.

pp. 114,

290.



17/31

116

MALCOLM

LOWE

But there s

reason o

suppose

hat the author

f

John's

Gospel

did

not invent hese

phrases,

ince at least the

first f them

has

parallels n the Septuagint7). Some such phrasewould also be

needed

to

distinguish

he

feasts f

Judea

and

earlier

Judah)

from

those

of other

religions

n

the area

48).

The

second

phrase

has no

exact

Septuagint arallels;

but

again, something

ike it

would be

needed

o

distinguish

he Passover f

the

Judeans

rom

hat

of

the

Samaritans,

nd

earlier he

Passover of

Judah

from

hat of

the

northern

ingdom9).

Now the author of

John's

Gospel

uses these

phrases

with

a

perceptible

onnotation f

Judea

in the strictense

(or

even of

Jerusalem

and its

immediate

surroundings).

or

they

occur

only

n

referenceo

feasts

equiring pilgrimage

o

Judea;

moreover,

they

are

employed

recisely

when

omething

s neededto

explain

why

people

are

suddenly

aced

with

a

journey

o

Judea.

Thus

at

Jn

vii

2-3

it

is said:

"Now the

iop-trj

wv

'Iouamxi

Tabernacles

was at

hand. So

his

brothers aid to him:

Leave here and

go

to

'Iouac .....' " (Herethepoint s especially onspicuous ecause

of the

etymological

onnexion.)Journeys

o

Jerusalem

re intro-

duced n a similar

attern

t

Jn

i

13,

v

I

and

xi

55.

On the

other

hand,

whenever he

evangelist's

ccount

has

already

made t

clear

that

Jesus

(or

whoever

lse)

was

in

Jerusalem,

he words

opt~,

7nxZxo

and

other

east

names)

occurwithout

ny appendage.

There s

exactly

ne

exception

o thisrule

0),

namely

n

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,

ou8sc,

r&k

&opr'q

(D"11)

aou;

Ez

xxxvi

38:

cg

np6paaococpouacX.

&v

r

ts

&opra'tS

D'tSl71)

asq;

and

I

Maccabees i

39:

ai

op'aocl

(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 s

cId

al-Muslimin,

id

al-Yahild, etc.,

i.e.

by

exact

analogues of1

l

opi zrcovIousgocov.

49)

Note that one of the first cts of

Jeroboam

after the

split

between

Israel

and

Judah

was to

institute feast

n

Bethel "like the feast

n

Judah"

(I

Ki xii

32;

Sept.:

xmr'&

,v

&op'rjv

v

&v

yt

Iou~8).

On

continuity

etween

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

nalogue

to Passover

would

presumably

ave been

instituted

n

the

following

pring.)

50)

Jn

xii

I

is not a

genuine

exception:

here

n7rcMa

ppears

without

the

appendage

(even

though

a

journey

ensues)

because the

full

formula ccurs

only

three

verses earlier

(in

xi

55,

while

o5v

of

xii

I

refers

ack

to xi

55-57).



18/31

WHO

WERE

THE

IOTAAIOI?

117

which

comments,

mmediately

efore

the

Feeding

of the Five

Thousand,

hat

Passover

'

opt~

'v

'Iouscdov

was at

hand,

and

yetno journey o Judeaensues. Now this s a remarkable ase of

the

exception roving

herule:

thisversedid not exist n

versions

of

John's

Gospel

known o some

early

uthorities,

nd it has often

been

regarded

s the

main obstacle

to

reconciling

he

chronology

ofthis

gospel

with he

Synoptics

1).

So on theone handwe have

an

extra

reason

for

uestioning

he

authenticity

fthis

verse,

while n

the other

hand there s

reinforcement

or he

suggestion

hat for

the

principal

uthor

of

John'sGospel

(but

not

forwhoeverwas

responsible

or hisverse) hesephrases ad a connotationfJudea.

If

an

explanation

s

sought

or uch

connotation,

t s

perhaps

o

be

found

n

those

earlierhistorical ituations.

or

if

such

phrases

(and

theirSemitic

quivalents)

were

already

current

n

the

long

period

when

Judaism

was

merely

he

religion

f

Judea

n

the strict

sense

and

before hat the

religion

f the

kingdom

f

Judah),

hen

they

would

once

have meant

"feast/Passover

f the

Judeans".

As

the Hasmoneanexpansionhad occurred omparativelyecently,

it is conceivable that such

phrases

continued

omewhat nac-

curately

o

have the

same

meaning 2)

at least

long enough

for

the

main

uthor

f

John's

Gospel

o understandhem

n this

way

3).

In

any

ase,

heir ranslationhould eflectheir se

by

this

uthor;

in

this

respect

he

possibilities

reeither

iterally

s

"feast/Passover

of

the

Judeans"

r

(perhaps

etter)

s

"Judean

feast/Passover"4).

51)

See

HERMANN VON

SODEN,

"Chronology",EncyclopaediaBiblica

(ed.

CHEYNE

and

BLACK).

I

intend

to

go

into

the

chronological mplications

n

a

separate

paper.

The

chronology

f

Johndepends

almost

entirely pon

these

five

mentions

of

feasts;

the

stylistic

feature

ust

explained

indicates that

fourof them were

due to one hand and the fifth o another.

Note that also the mention f Hanukka

(r&

yxata,

the Feast of Dedica-

tion

of the

Temple)

in

Jn

x

22-23

has a

scene-setting

unction:

t

was

a)

Hanukka

and

b) winter(y), xplaining

why

Jesus

was

a)

in

the

temple

nd

b)

moreover n

the

portico

of Solomon

(which

offered

helter).

52)

In fact

the

chief

feasts

of

Judaism

continued

to

be celebratednear

a

Judeantemplerunby Judeans,so that theywere still n a sensepeculiarly

Judean

feasts.The

slaughtering

nd

eating

of the

Paschal

Lamb,

for

nstance,

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

LUSSER.

54) Giving e.g.

for

Jn

vii

2-3:

"Now

the

Judean

feast Tabernacles was at

hand. So his

brothers

aid

to

him: 'Leave here and

go

to

Judea...'

".

It is

This content downloaded from 130.216

Documents

Who Were the Ioudaioi