|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What's up with John and "the Jews"?
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
This question arises from John's account of the story of Lazarus (John 11: 1-45).
Now, as we know, John frequently uses the term "the Jews," often in a context that paints "the Jews" as the villain of the piece. It is "the Jews" that try to stone Jesus, "the Jews" that conspire to put him to death, etc. It is so heavy-handed that, when John's account of the Passion is read at Mass, there is usually a footnote put in to caution that the term only "means 'the leaders of the Jews' or the 'the adversaries of Jesus,' terms which express better the thought of the evangelist" and that we should avoid interpreting it as putting all Jewish people in a negative light.
Now, usually, that caution also notes that it depends on context, which is always a good thing to remember. Because this brings us to the account of Lazarus. Here, while there is reference to "the Jews" trying to stone Jesus, there is also mention that "many Jews" had come to comfort Mary and Martha over the loss of their brother. When Mary goes out to Jesus, "the Jews" follow and they are noted as weeping along with Mary. When Jesus also weeps, "the Jews" comment (favorably, it seems to me) on how much Jesus loved Lazarus (although there is also a mention that some of them were more catty about it). Finally, after Lazarus is raised, it mentions that many of "the Jews" came to believe in Jesus.
My point is that, in this story, "the Jews" are not wholly lumped into the villain role as they are elsewhere in John's gospel.
So, finally, to my question to my more linguistically talented Shipmates: in the original Greek, does John use the same word for "the Jews" when he is giving it a more pejorative sense as he does in this passage when the Jews (or at least some of them) come across more sympathetically? In other words, is there a linguistic clue when he is referring to, shall we say, "the bad Jews" versus "the good Jews" that just does not translate easily into English? Or is it the same word and context is everything?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm sorry to tell you it's the exact same word. You will have to rely on context, just as you do when people refer to "the White House" (do you mean 2016 or 2017?).
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I always read it as "the Judeans." The disciples were all from Galilee, and as we find out on the night Peter betrayed Christ, they stood out by their accents, and it appears there was some kind of us-and-them between the two regions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
And of course Mary and Martha and Lazarus lived in Bethany, so "the Jews" ("the Judeans") would describe their neighbors, and of course them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It's also worth noting that in some places at least some of "the Jews" are described as believing in Jesus or being otherwise sympathetic to him. It's not the same homogeneous mass of clones being referred to every time. John is probably usually thinking of prominent people (thus leaders or people connected to them by family ties). But we know that at least some of these people did come to faith, and Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are highly honored.
There may be some analogies with the way the term "Americans" works in the first generation Vietnamese immigrant generation here. Although almost all of them have American citizenship, they routinely use the term "Americans" among themselves to mean "people we live among who are not ethnic Vietnamese", and in particular, to leaders (example: "Someone's been moving the furniture around in our worship space--we'd better go talk to the Americans about it." In this example, "Americans" clearly means "non-Vietnamese church leaders" and NOT simply "non-Vietnamese church members".)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
The word for 'Jew' and the word for 'Judean' are the same. Since Jerusalem was located in Judea, most of the Jewish authorities lived in Judea.
When John talks of the Jews, he frequently means the Jewish authorities.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
The equivalency of "Jew" and "Judean," and the historical fact that Jewish authorities tended to be Judeans, does raise another question: Why do we not translate the term as "Judean"? I cannot recall any Bible translation that uses that term. All the ones I have seen translate it as "Jews"--but taking into account mousethief's and Moo's comments, wouldn't "Judeans" generally be more appropriate?
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Although there is that equivalence, I prefer Moo's suggestion in her last paragraph. Jesus's disagreement was with the Temple leaders, and those whom they stirred up rather than the man in the street of Jerusalem or the fields in the surrounding countryside.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Although there is that equivalence, I prefer Moo's suggestion in her last paragraph. Jesus's disagreement was with the Temple leaders, and those whom they stirred up rather than the man in the street of Jerusalem or the fields in the surrounding countryside.
As an aside - back to the blind man given sight. He and his parents were expelled from the synagogue, not the temple. Does that mean that despite the reference to the Pool of Siloam this occurred outside Jerusalem?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The synagogue was where ordinary church life took place--teaching, preaching, study, etc. etc. It was your local small community, and if it expelled you, well...
The temple was more of a place or function--lots of people never got there but once a year or (I bet) less. I don't know if you COULD be expelled from the temple, as it was a community only in the sense that it was the worship center for the whole people of God, and that only occasionally (for most people, I mean).
A rough equivalent might be the difference between being persona non grata at the local neighborhood functions vs. being such at the White House. One might sound more impressive, but the other has a much greater impact on daily life.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
What I was asking (rather obscurely) was whether there were synagogues in Jerusalem as well as the Temple? Like a collection of churches in a medieval city clustered around the cathedral?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There must have been. The temple wasn't really set up to handle all of the functions of the synagogue. This site claims there were nearly 500 synagogues in Jerusalem around the time of Christ, though they don't cite their sources.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks - just one of those little sidelines.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
It is commonly assumed that John was written between 90-110 CE during this period of time there was a push by Jewish Authorities to divest itself of the Jesus Movement. The climax of the polemic is in John 8 where Jesus accuses "the Jews" of being the spawn of Satan.
A major difference between the opposition of the Pharisees in the other three Gospels we have is that Jesus is depicted as discussing and debating differences--with Jesus having the upper hand. However, John depicts Jesus as a totally new revelation. It now becomes a us vs them mentality.
Facing History, which is dedicated to confronting anti semiticism has a link that discusses this split.
https://www.facinghistory.org/sites/default/files/Ch.2.pdf.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
That link gives '404 Page not Found'
Raymond Brown in his commentary argues that in the cases where a kind of quasi-formal opposition to Jesus is envisaged, John's usage of 'the Jews' should be understood as referring to the religious authorities.
He suggests that by the time John's gospel came into its final form, the separation between that branch of Judaism which believed Jesus was the messiah, and (largely pharisaic) Judaism which did not believe that had become sufficiently clear cut that those Jews who were Christians were no longer identified as 'Jews'. (I am summarising rather simplistically a longer argument.)
He points out that in e.g. John 9 - the man born blind - the term can't be taken to indicate that that man or his parents were not Jews, and this is an indication that the term has come to have a more specialised meaning.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Apropos of nothing, does anybody else hear in their head Elton John singing "J-J-J-J-J-Johnny and the Jewsssssss"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
"The Jews" as a ruling elite were represented in Lazarus' community in Bethany. They were his neighbours. He was ... one of them? What's the problem?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
