How should the Greek word for "Jews" be translated? asks Dr Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
He says::
The translation of Ioudaioi always and only as “Jews” sends the reader in the opposite direction from what the author intended. While the translation of this word simply as “Judeans,” is a more accurate choice than “Jews,” it is still not fully adequate – for three reasons that come to mind:
a) The English word Jews evokes, in the minds of modern peoples, the idea of Jewish religion (i.e. Jews are people who profess a religion called Judaism) and therefore cannot be used indiscriminately to translate the term Ioudaioi, since, in the first century, there was no separate category for religion (Judaism, when it was used, meant something much more all-encompassing than what it means to us today). In a sense, it was only when non-Israelite Christ-followers, in an attempt to self-establish and self-define, created the category called Christianity, that the category called Judaism, as we know it today, was also born. Since then most Christian theologians and most Jewish theologians after them project our modern definition of Judaism back into the New Testament.
b) On the other hand, the English word Judean evokes in the minds of modern people, oftentimes, an almost exclusively geographical definition (a Judean is the person who lives in Judea or used to live in Judea) and hence cannot be used indiscriminately either, since today it does not imply everything it intended to imply in late antiquity.
c) The word Judean, without clarification and nuancing, does not account for the complex relationship of the outside-of-Judea affiliates with the Jerusalem authorities either. Because of the lack of a perfect word to describe what was meant by Ioudaioi in the Gospel of John, I suggest that the word is best left untranslated.
There is a video link:: www.JewishGospelofJohn.com
5 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
Perhaps we should reword the question as: "...the Greek word commonly translated as 'Jews' ..." so that the premise of the question isn't undermined (the question is whether or not it is 'the word for "Jews"').
Dr. Eli is making some important points, but let me make a general comment that applies to this as well as many other issues that people raise. This issue (and many others) are not new issues for Bible translators. Translators in the past have faced them and often they have written about them. Anyone with access to the index to The Bible Translator, for example, will find many articles discussing the question of how to translate "the Jews". If I am not mistaken, the Good News Bible was one of the first to attempt to translate the word in different ways according to context. But if it was not done in the Good News Bible, I am fairly sure that Bob Bratcher wrote one or more articles about this issue.
Dick, I wonder if you could clarify what you're trying to get at with your use of "orthodox." For many/most the term would have anachronistic problems of one or two types: 1) as "orthodox" is a term used for later Christian and Jewish traditions, as in the Greek Orthodox Church or Orthodox Judaism); 2) as "orthodox" is later used in binary contrast with "unorthodox/heretical." So what would 'orthodox Judeans' be signifying in distinction from 'Judeans'? In some Johannine contexts I could see some attempt to suggest these particular Judeans may be especially loyal to temple/Jerusalem authorities or traditions with which Jesus is seen to be at odds. Is that what you have in mind? Some have gone (in John's Gospel) with "Jewish leaders" but that raises other questions (and I don't think 'Judean leaders' would be helpful at all). I would tend to avoid trying to build into a translation too much explication about things around which there is no scholarly consensus. Clearly there are ideological issues at play any way we go. The same translation action may be seen as a positive attempt to remove elements that could continue to negatively impact Christian responses to Jews (and thus the experience of Jews at the hands of those Christians) or as an attempt to white-wash NT texts so that their complicity in anti-Jewish rhetoric will be erased. I'm mainly with the first approach, but tend to think any translation would do well to address the complex issue and potential implications as part of a preface (where possible), so that readers can understand both the translation problem and the complexity of the issues it raises.
Roy, I only suggested 'orthodox' as a means of pushing the discussion towards something that would be, as you say, "a positive attempt to remove elements that could continue to negatively impact Christian responses to Jews (and thus the experience of Jews at the hands of those Christians)." I don't believe it has ever been only Christians who have misunderstood the Apostle John's use of the term Ioudaioi, or deliberately used it as an excuse for persecution of Jews, and anti-Semitism is far from a dead issue, especially among Muslims. Furthermore, Dr. Eli's abhorrence of the implication of the translation, "the Jews," speaks to a high wall that has been more than just a stumbling stone, keeping Jews from Christ. In other words, I believe that the history of the translation and interpretation of this term and modern scholars failure to correct it is shameful. Perhaps, a clarification in a preface is all that we should expect, but I wonder if all the scholarly arguments against potential modifications in the text, are worthy of the harm that has been done by the ye olde tradition.
I did a bit of research on this topic recently. In the Greco-Roman world, religious beliefs and customs were associated with regions and nations from which they originated (Ashton 44, Stanley 105, Cohen 69-70, Mason 483-84, 489). Steve Mason has argued that religious beliefs and customs were part and parcel of this national identity, and that religion was not a separate category. He points to the fact that the term Ioudaioi often occurs in the context of the mentioning of other nations: Phrygians, Cappadocians, Romans, Galatians, Greeks. “Judeans” would then seem a more appropriate translation. It also fits the Pauline contexts, e.g. where he mentions "Judeans" and Greeks. According to Mason, the terms “Jews” and “Jewish” are anachronistic terms because they focus on ethno-religious meaning, and they do not show the (primary!) geographical notion of the term Ioudaios. There is of course discussion when exactly the shift occurred from Ioudaioi meaning "Judean" to Ioudaioi meaning "Jews". Some historians place this transition early, during the Maccabean revolt of the 2nd century BCE (Cohen), others much later in the 3rd century AD (Mason). It seems, though, that many of the occurrences in 1-2 Maccabees still can be understood as “Judean(s)” and not “Jew(ish)”; the revolt centers around the territory of Judea and the protection of the Temple in Jerusalem. Here's some literature on the topic: Malcolm Lowe, “Who were the Ἰουδαῖοι?,” Novum Testamentum 18 (1976), 101-130 John Ashton, “The Identity and Function of the Ἰουδαῖοι in the Fourth Gospel,” Novum Testamentum 27 (1985), 40-75. Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 (1996), 101-124 Shaye J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press 1999. Sean Freyne, “Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi,” in Eric M. Meyers, ed., Galilee Through the Centuries. Confluence of Cultures (Duke Judaic Studies Series 1), Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns 1999, 39-55. Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007), 457-512. Markus Cromhout, “Were the Galileans ‘religious Jews’ or ethnic Judeans’?,” HTS Teologiese Studies 64(3) 2008, 1279-1297. See more on: www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/10/23/was-there-such-a-thing-as-ancient-judaism-steve-masons-recent-article-on-judeans-ioudaioi-in-antiquity