Jew or Judaean Again
During my absence, I’ve been working on two projects which might interest readers. First, I’m still working on BibleWorks modules, namely Catullus and a reworking of Caesar. The other main project I’m working on is my Matthew paper.
The subject on Matthew introduces many new questions I had not thought of before. The old paper, which a lucky few of you were generous enough to read and offer feedback, has found new life with very new questions.
The big question I’m working with now concerns identity, and is directly relevant to Loren’s debate on translating Ιουδαιος as “Jew” or “Judean”.
My biggest problem is that Loren opts for a practical but incorrect position - use Judean when it’s applicable, and use Jew for post-70 situations or when talking to the lay. This itself is an abuse of the language.
Two papers help establish this.
The first is F. W. Walbank’s “Nationality as a Factor in Roman History” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 76 (1972): 145-168. The paper basically summed up Roman views on identification. He argues quite convincingly that Romanization (the granting of Roman civitas to foreigners) was followed by “eroding national distinctions”.
Next, we must take the term Ιουδαιος into context. Who wrote the term? To whom did it apply? This is where the next paper comes into play: Ross S. Kraemer’s “On the Meaning of the Term “Jew” in Greco-Roman Inscriptions” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 82 no. 1 (1989): 35-53.
Rather than adopting the term “Judean” for whenever we speak of “Jews” (in our sense) before the destruction of the Temple in 70, Kraemer instead concludes (after much evidence from the inscriptions themselves) that in some places indubiously geographic location, and thus Judean, is preferred, but other places it cannot refer to a Judean, especially when proselytes are involved. In other places, it quite possibly refers to a given name instead of a mere adjective. Jew(ess) and Judeus(-a) are perfectly fine if they fit the context.
The other major problem to be concerned with is understanding who is the author. Does Matthew really mean the Judeans in 28:15? What about in the notoriously anti-(Jewish?) Gospel of John? Is John anti-Judean, or anti-Jewish? The major question behind the question for the New Testament documents is at what point did the authors consider themselves distinct? That’s for another (upcoming) post.
Edit: View the comments for more discussion by Loren and me (and whoever would like to join).
Glad you’re still working on Catullus
July 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pmChris wrote:
My biggest problem is that Loren opts for a practical but incorrect position - use Judean when it’s applicable, and use Jew for post-70 situations or when talking to the lay. This itself is an abuse of the language.
I’m not sure you understand my position. I’m saying that “Judean” is always the applicable term in the 2nd-Temple period — even up to 135 CE — and that it’s regretful that we have to use “Jew” instead while speaking to the laity because the former hasn’t caught on yet.
Rather than adopting the term “Judean” for whenever we speak of “Jews” (in our sense) before the destruction of the Temple in 70, Kraemer instead concludes (after much evidence from the inscriptions themselves) that in some places indubiously geographic location, and thus Judean, is preferred, but other places it cannot refer to a Judean, especially when proselytes are involved. In other places, it quite possibly refers to a given name instead of a mere adjective. Jew(ess) and Judeus(-a) are perfectly fine if they fit the context.
I fail to see why the term wouldn’t cover proselytes.
The other major problem to be concerned with is understanding who is the author. Does Matthew really mean the Judeans in 28:15? What about in the notoriously anti-(Jewish?) Gospel of John? Is John anti-Judean, or anti-Jewish? The major question behind the question for the New Testament documents is at what point did the authors consider themselves distinct?
The point is that “Jew” is a mistranslation in the NT. When Paul, Matthew, and John speak of “Jews” they’re speaking of “Judeans”, and they may be doing so with blinders on to other geographic designations for Israelite heirs, or they may well be using the term inclusively. Remember the case of Jospehus. That he felt compelled to go out of his way to use a periphrasis to describe geographic Judeans (War 2:43) points to the acceptable inclusive use of the term.
The real reason to distinguish Judeans from later Jews is because the pattern of religion changed so drastically after the temple (or a realistic hope for its rebuilding) was destroyed. It marked a dramatic change for the chosen — as dramatic as when they went from being Israelites to Judeans.
July 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pmI’m not sure you understand my position. I’m saying that “Judean” is always the applicable term in the 2nd-Temple period — even up to 135 CE — and that it’s regretful that we have to use “Jew” instead while speaking to the laity because the former hasn’t caught on yet.
Right, and yes, I suppose 135 is a much better date than 70, even though I think it changed dramatically at 70 also.
I fail to see why the term wouldn’t cover proselytes.
My, I suppose I did do a poor job of connecting the dots. You see, in the Roman world, one did not view himself necessarily from the nation he came from. As was pointed out from the first article, no Roman would ever call themselves Latinus, and the later on in the empire we go, the more distinct the Romanitas is.
The real reason to distinguish Judeans from later Jews is because the pattern of religion changed so drastically after the temple (or a realistic hope for its rebuilding) was destroyed. It marked a dramatic change for the chosen — as dramatic as when they went from being Israelites to Judeans.
Not entirely. Christianity came up with a parallel for Rabbinical Judaism before the fall of the Temple, and outside natural communities of Judeans, foreigners picked up certain traits of Judaism without distinguishing one from the other. For the Roman, all was the same.
Moreover, you fall prey to your own advances. Remember, we’re talking about Judaisms, right? I don’t think it’s fair to group all Jewish groups into one Judaism and say that they were different in nature than the one post-135.
Think about it - if Christianity is a Jewish sect, as you maintained, than we have evidence of a parallel forming to Rabbinical Judaism before the destruction of Jerusalem. Likewise, we must consider - what really is different between Jews pre-135 and post-135? Especially now, as they are back in Israel with rumour (though I daresay that it will only remain rumour) of rebuilding the Temple.
There is much to discuss, but my point is that Judean should be the geographic/ethnic label, while Jew should properly refer to the religious observances of those who have a connection to Judaea in some way. Otherwise, we’ll end up with the strange case of having Roman Judeans! As the first paper pointed out, such a dual identity only works in the reverse (Judeans who become Roman citizens) not the other way around (Roman citizens do not become Judeans).
I hope I’ve become clearer.
Chris Weimer
July 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pmIs the problem perhaps that people described as Iudaioi cannot sensibly be described as ‘Judaeans’ — e.g. in Chrysostom’s time; and that people so described in 1 AD cannot sensibly be described as ‘Jews’?
If so, a pragmatic solution would seem necessary. The change in how we render the word does, after all, correspond to a change in facts on the ground. It isn’t the only case where one foreign word has to be rendered by more than one English word.
See what people have done in the past and use that. I always get nervous when people start using words in a curious way; we’ve all seen too much Newspeak, too many cases where people try to change facts by talking in a loaded way.
July 25th, 2007 at 1:42 amRoger wrote:
See what people have done in the past and use that.
Why do you think I mentioned Josephus? Why don’t we follow his example?
I always get nervous when people start using words in a curious way; we’ve all seen too much Newspeak, too many cases where people try to change facts by talking in a loaded way.
That’s precisely the point I made in my original post here. There are good and bad reasons for preferring Judean over Jew, but good wins out. The bad ones involve politically correct concerns that we’re somehow being disrespectful to modern-day “Jews” by not coming up with a new word for their ancient predecessors.
We aren’t “changing facts” here by speaking in a loaded way, just acknowledging that the temple-based religion of Judeans was very different from the later religion of Jews which had fully emerged only by the third century. In my view, that’s an important distinction to make.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:18 amSure! I wasn’t trying to disabuse you of the notion that it must all be “Jews” or “Judeans”, (we agree that Judean has its place) but I think that “Judean” for a practitioner of the religion of Judea (generally the Temple Cult) is not distinct enough. English I think is lucky enough to have such a distinction in language (cf. ioudaios for centuries before and after 135) and I think we should be made aware of that.
I don’t think that a Roman convert is considered a “Judean”, but rather, a Jew, even coming before 135.
Chris Weimer
July 25th, 2007 at 4:27 amChris wrote:
you fall prey to your own advances. Remember, we’re talking about Judaisms, right? I don’t think it’s fair to group all Jewish groups into one Judaism and say that they were different in nature than the one post-135.
Chris, the question of diversity remains the same regardless of which term we use. In other words, whether it’s more appropriate to speak of Judaism(s) or Judeanism(s) is an entirely separate issue. Furthermore, it’s actually the scholars who prefer “Judean” over “Jew” who emphasize the diversity of 2nd-Temple beliefs. Their point is that “Jew” tends to de-legitimate the many of ways of being an Israelite heir that were highly local and provincial in the first century. “Judean” has the advantage of referring either to the geographical desgination (as distinct from Galileans, Pereans, Idumeans) or more inclusively (as we use “Jew”) as Josephus’ use of the periphrasis indicates. See Oakman’s and Hanson’s book for the different uses of “Judean”. Remember: it’s a slippery term, and that’s what is helpful about it, regardless of how inconvenient it can be sometimes.
(As an aside, I dislike the use of “Judaisms” — and I would protest against “Judeanisms” equally if scholars began using it — because it’s completely unnecessary. We have many Christianities and Hinduisms today, but “Christianity” and “Hinduism” remain acceptable, as they should.)
Otherwise, we’ll end up with the strange case of having Roman Judeans! As the first paper pointed out, such a dual identity only works in the reverse (Judeans who become Roman citizens) not the other way around (Roman citizens do not become Judeans).
Ah, but you just haven’t warmed to the word yet. Roman proselytes most certainly were Judeans. It only sounds “strange” because of the way we’ve been conditioned to hear “Jew” and “Judean” in the past.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:41 amOne more thing, Chris (then perhaps I should be gracious enough to allow you the final word). You wrote:
my point is that Judean should be the geographic/ethnic label, while Jew should properly refer to the religious observances of those who have a connection to Judaea in some way.
Funny, because I can’t imagine a better term than Judean to refer to those who have those connections to Judea. “Jew” calls to mind the later rabbinic-based religion. “Judean” is all about ties (however geographically distant) to the priestly based temple cult in Judea.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:59 am(As an aside, I dislike the use of “Judaisms” — and I would protest against “Judeanisms” equally if scholars began using it — because it’s completely unnecessary. We have many Christianities and Hinduisms today, but “Christianity” and “Hinduism” remain acceptable, as they should.)
I’m glad to see we agree here! I’d like to take it a step further, though, and apply the same thing to Jew/Judean.
You see, I first understood Judean to refer to the nationalistic sense of the people. That is, the Temple Cult and the reverence of the Holy Land all pointed to a nationalism so frequent in the region.
Are you instead arguing that because Judaism was different before and after 135 that we should apply a different name to their followers, regardless of the actual term?
For me, the arguments for using Judean come from the fact that Judean is a geographic label - Judean sands. Most certainly it is worthwhile to use it in many places, including Josephus, and especially when discussing the historical actions of the people of Judaea.
However, proselytes bred strange beliefs. If I understand correctly, there was a Gnostic (Christian) group that called themselves ioudaioi - which garnered the ire of one Christian. Another example is a certain Annia Lucii Iuda whose votive inscription began “Iunonibus” - a pagan dedication to the Junones, who pertain to the Goddess Juno.
This brings me back to my point on Roman citizenship and how it downplayed nationalism.
What would you call a Roman citizen who took affinities towards the religion of the Judeans, but not the whole fledged practice? I’d call them Jews. They had no ties to Judea.
Now let’s come a full circle - Christianity today is radically different from what it was in the second century CE, yet they were called Christians (Christianoi) both then and now.
I don’t find it practical to deviate from this practice, nor do I think that the religious of Judaea should cease to be called Jews. One would be able to be Jewish and Judaean simultaneously.
Chris
July 25th, 2007 at 5:12 amFunny, because I can’t imagine a better term than Judean to refer to those who have those connections to Judea. “Jew” calls to mind the later rabbinic-based religion. “Judean” is all about ties (however geographically distant) to the priestly based temple cult in Judea.
It’s a slippery slope. Do we start calling all those with connections to Religio Romana “Romans”?
But please, please, the last word is yours!
Chris
July 25th, 2007 at 5:18 amWell, how about the following heads-up for a last word. Bob Webb just left this news-flash on my blog:
Loren,
On this issue you might want to see, and perhaps alert readers, to the essay by John H. Elliott, “Jesus Was Neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature” in the next issue of _JSHJ_ 5.2 (2007), which should be out sometime this month.
Bob
Of course, Elliott and Esler have been the strongest advocates for dropping “Jew” in favor of “Judean”. I can’t wait to read this essay. Perhaps you can write a review of it, Chris, when it comes out.
July 25th, 2007 at 7:54 amGuys, what is the issue, here? Ioudaioi means Judeans, people from Judea. That the term came to bear an extended semantic range doesn’t mean that it doesn’t mean Judeans anymore, only that it has come to encompass an extended meaning. The word stays the same, but the connotation alters.
I think it’s only valid to use two distinct terms, Judeans vs Jews, when the difference is reflected in the original language. Was there a word in Greek that meant Jews as opposed to Judeans? No! After a time, these differences developed in Northwestern Europe, but I can’t think of other places this is so. Russians call them Hebrews, Latins Judeans, Greeks Judeans, the Semitic languages Judeans, and so on.
Turn it around. How would you represent the distinction between English “Jew” and “Judean” in Koine Greek? And there, precisely, is your answer for when those should be used in translating Ioudaioi and any number of circumlocutions for “those adhering to the religion of the Judeans” from Koine.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pm[…] Weimer jumps into the “Jew or Judean” fray. I am partial to the use of “Judean” […]
July 31st, 2007 at 7:17 am[…] last reminds me of the interesting “IUDAIOS as Judean or Jew?” debate circling the web (see C. Weimer; follow his link back to Loren Rosson; see comments on both blogs). I’m under the impression that […]
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 pm[…] as “Judaeans” or “Jews” (for Judaeans, here, here, here; for Jews here, here; personally I lean towards Judaeans but tend to use Jews in a popular setting like a blog). The […]
July 21st, 2009 at 4:56 pm