Newsletter: Vol. 10. Iss. 1
September 2010
Was Jesus Really Jewish?,
cont'd.
Peter J. Miano
As I said, the routine, mechanical, uncritical identification of Jesus and his people—including his enemies—as Jews is at the root of at least one of the repugnant canards of Christian anti-Semitism. The noble efforts of scores of scholars and clergy to eradicate Christian anti-Semitism has not succeeded. Curiously, though, those same scores of clergy and scholars are among those most eager to label Jesus and his people—including his enemies—as Jews. Are they or we required by any principle of biblical translation to render the Greek word Ioudaios with the English word Jew? The answer is an emphatic NO! The modern English word Jew derives from the ancient Greek word Ioudaios, but it does not correctly translate it. The English word Jew carries with it contemporary referent that is not related to the ancient world and forcing such a translation does damage to the meaning of the ancient biblical texts. Scholars know that the Greek word Ioudaios, as it is employed in the New Testament, has at least four distinct meanings. It was used in Roman society to refer to the group of people who were more or less related to the cult of Yahweh with its center in Jerusalem. This is the sense in which Tacitus uses it. Josephus and Paul also use it, but only when their audiences are composed on non-Israelites as it is in many of Paul's letters. They never use it to refer to themselves. The term was also used to connote members of the ruling class in Jerusalem who administered the Temple cult. A third definition is a geographical one—it refers to the region of Judea and those who lived there. A fourth meaning, found especially in John’s gospel, refers to Jesus’ enemies, who in that gospel are always Ioudaioi, better translated as Judeans, than Jews. The terms Ioudaios and its plural version occurs frequently in John, almost 60 times compared with fewer than ten times in the other three canonical gospels combined. This disproportionate frequency in John points to a stipulative definition for a specifically Johannine context. It is our job as biblical scholars to identify that context and prevent the cavalier translation of ancient terms into modern ones, especially when this causes real damage.
Employing the term Jew/Jews to translate ancient Greek words ignores the obvious and sharp distinctions between the modern Jewish people and their ancient forebears. Modern Judaism is a broad and rich experience just as its ancient predecessors were. Scholars do not agree on what defined the ancient group of people who called themselves Israel and were called Judeans by the Romans and other outsiders. Incidentally, in modern Israel, "what is a Jew?" is a hotly debated question. We know, however, that animal sacrifice was the principle ritual act performed by people of the house of Israel, as Jesus knew it. It is likely that Jesus, himself, participated in animal sacrifice. We also know that no modern Jewish groups practice animal sacrifice—quite a distinct disparity. Modern Jews trace their ancestry through the mother’s blood line. In the time of Jesus, lineage was traced through the father’s blood line. Modern Judaism is based on the Talmuds. Jesus and Paul never even heard of these. Israelite religion is easily distinguished from modern Rabbinic Judaism. So easily distinguishable are the two that contemporary Jewish scholars are increasingly candid about the issue. Jacob Neusner distinguishes between the two by use of the terms formative Judaism vs. normative Judaism. Paul Fredriksen prefers to speak of Judaisms in order to acknowledge the distinctions. Some, including the Israeli historian, Schlomo Sand, insist there there never was anything like a Jewish "people" in the time of Jesus.
The standard, routine translation of the Greek words Ioudaios/Ioudaioi into Jew/Jews in biblical translation is not only unnecessary by any principle of translation, it is also historically inaccurate and misleading in a way that encourages modern ethnic stereotypes. The ethics of the Bible are susceptible to modern moral critique, e.g., when it endorses colonialism, genocide, slavery and the subjugation of women. In the case of modern translations, it is not the Bible that does damage to Jews, it is the translators, who incorrectly and insensitively equate modern Jews and Judaism with an ancient past. Modern Jews certainly trace their spiritual ancestry to the time of Jesus and earlier, but it is not correct to call Jesus a Jew any more than it is to call him a Christian. The English word Jew derives from the Greek word Ioudaios, but it does not correctly or adequately translate it.
