(The information and lines of argument on this page and the following 3:
Why Does John Translate Hebrew/Aramaic Words into Greek?
The Children of God Scattered Abroad...Who are They?
When was John Written?

draw heavily on John A. T. Robinson's book, Redating the New Testament.)

 

Because of the controversy surrounding the word, "logos" and how it should be understood, the issue of who John's intended audience was becomes very important, as well as when it was written. "Logos" is not explained or defined; therefore, John assumes that his audience understands what he means. So if Gentiles were the intended audience, then "logos" would most likely be understood in Greek philosophical terms. If Jews were the intended audience, then "logos" should be understood from the Old Testament matrix for the "word of the Lord." The former would support the Trinitarian position for the literal pre-existence of Jesus, and the nature of God, the latter would not. This page and the following one will concern itself with the intended audience.

 

A large part of the case for arguing that John was written to Gentiles rests upon the fact that John felt it necessary to translate Aramaic terms into Greek that should have been familiar to Jews.  For example:

 

1) He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). (1:41)

2) The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things." (4:25)

3) Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "Where are you staying?" (1:38)

4) Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rab-bo'ni!" (which means Teacher). (20:16)

 

The Gospel of John contains examples of John allegedly explaining Jewish customs:

 

1) Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. (6:3-4)

2) For the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, was near. (7:1-2)

 

There are more examples, perhaps less persuasive (e.g. translating Cephas into Peter, the Place of Skull to Golgotha, etc.). Given the above, the proponent of the idea that Gentiles are the intended audience understands that John's writing was addressed to people that might not know:

 

1) what was a "Ravi" (teacher)

2) what was a "Mashiach" (messiah)

3) what was the "Passover"

4) what was the "Feast of Tabernacles"

 

The reasoning is: If these terms have to be translated for the reader, then that indicates that Gentiles are the intended audience. Therefore, because "logos" is not explained in its Old Testament, Hebraic sense, the Gentiles to whom the letter was written would naturally understand it from a Greek philosophical paradigm rather than the Jewish paradigm - and that was exactly what John intended.

 

I will first deal with "Passover" and "Feast of Tabernacles". The position is that John defines these - "the feast of the Jews" - and so presupposes that his audience doesn't know what they are.

 

The assumption (it is the common assumption among the vast majority of modern readers) is that John uses the phrase, "the Jews" in relation/opposition to, "the Gentiles". However, a cursory look at a concordance, and a quick purview of the immediate contexts in which the phrase, "the Jews" occurs in John's Gospel, shows that this is NOT how John is using the phrase. The phrase, "the Jews" occurs almost 70 times in John. My contention is that NEVER is it used as the antithesis of "the Gentiles" but is used in the context of inter-Jewish groups that are in greater or lesser degrees of conflict.

 

I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal exhaustively with the dozens and dozens of contexts in which the phrase occurs, but I will give a few examples to make the point.

 

1) 5:10 f - So THE JEWS said to the man who was cured, "It is the Sabbath, it is not lawful for you to carry your pallet." But he answered them, "The man who healed me said to me, 'Take up your pallet, and walk.'" They asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, 'Take up your pallet, and walk'?" ... The man ...  told THE JEWS that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why THE JEWS persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the Sabbath.

 

This incident is in the context of a completely JEWISH milieu. There are no Gentiles present. The man who was cured was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. John, who is writing the account, is a Jew. The men questioning the cured man were Jews. THE issue was a Jewish one - the Sabbath. So, by "the Jews" John cannot mean "Jews" as opposed to "Gentiles." He means something along the lines of the ruling class of Jews - those who were concerned with enforcing the Law of Moses - those Jews who were associated with Jerusalem and the Temple there. Notice the establishment of the context in 5:1: "After this there was a feast of THE JEWS, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." The "Jews" of the feast are the same "Jews" who were grilling the healed man, who was a Jew, about Jesus, also a Jew, and his healing of someone on the Sabbath - something of concern only to Jews.

 

2) 1:19 - And this is the testimony of John, when THE JEWS sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"

 

Again, this is a completely Jewish milieu. The Baptist is Jewish, his converts are Jewish, the priests and Levites are Jewish, and "the Jews" who sent them are Jewish. There are no Gentiles in sight. This passage, as the one above, identifies "the Jews" with Jerusalem. If you keep reading you will find that in 1:24 it says, "Now they had been sent from the Pharisees." So "the Jews" in verse 19 = "the Pharisees" in verse 24.

 

3)  8:21 - Again he said to them, "I go away, and you will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come." Then said THE JEWS, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?"

 

Again, this is a completely Jewish milieu. Notice the location: (8:20) "These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come." There were no Gentiles in the Temple, only Jews. The "Jews" with which Jesus was in contention are again identified in 8:13 as, "the Pharisees", NOT "the Jews" as opposed to "the Gentiles". Also, at the end of chapter 8 it says, "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." He was IN THE TEMPLE the whole time. All the conflict was among different factions of Jews. Notice the distinctions: 8:31 - "Jesus then said to THE JEWS WHO HAD BELIEVED in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples..." Not just, "the Jews" but "the Jews who had believed". Perhaps there was a faction of Pharisees (Nicodemus?) who believed, or perhaps "the Jews who had believed" were non-Pharisaical Jews.

 

4) 7:1-3 - After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because THE JEWS sought to kill him. Now THE JEWS' feast of Tabernacles was at hand.

 

This identifies "the Jews" with Judea, as opposed to Galilee. The "Jews" who sought to kill him are the same "Jews" associated with the feast of Tabernacles - Judeans. This is the Feast of Tabernacles where Jesus went up in secret:

 

5) 7:8-15 - Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." So saying, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. THE JEWS were looking for him at the feast, and saying, "Where is he?" And there was much muttering about him among THE PEOPLE. While some said, "He is a good man," others said, "No, he is leading the people astray." Yet for fear of THE JEWS no one spoke openly of him. About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. THE JEWS marveled at it, saying, "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?"

 

"The people" are Jews; otherwise they wouldn't be at the feast. Jesus is a Jew, and his brothers are Jews, "The Jews" are Jews. It's a COMPLETELY Jewish milieu. "The people" (who were Jews) feared "the Jews". We see here again that John uses "the Jews" to refer to the ruling classes (Levites, Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, the Sanhedrin, etc) who in general opposed Jesus at every turn. Notice the implication, "How is it that this ignorant Galilean hick has learning - as opposed to us cultured, refined, educated and cosmopolitan Jews of Jerusalem."

 

6) 9:22 - His parents said this because they feared THE JEWS, for THE JEWS had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.

 

The man born blind was a Jew, Jesus was a Jew, "His parents" are Jews - they are afraid of being put out of the synagogue, what Gentile would be afraid of THAT? - and "the Jews" were Jews. The issue is Jewish - the identity of the Christ. No Gentiles anywhere in sight. Again it's clear that "the Jews" were a ruling class, they had the authority to "put out of the synagogue".

 

7) 13:33 - Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me; and as I said to THE JEWS so now I say to you, 'Where I am going you cannot come.'

 

Jesus is here speaking to the 12 disciples - Jews every single one - yet he distinguishes "the Jews" from "you" - the disciples.

 

This is enough to make the point that using John's allegedly explanatory phrase "the feast of the Jews" after "the feast of Tabernacles" and "the Passover" as a case-in-point that John was writing to Gentiles doesn't hold up. John does not use "the Jews" in opposition to "Gentiles". He uses it in relation to different factions within Judaism. In my opinion, nothing could be more false than to suppose that "the Jews", as John uses the phrase, is a blanket-term for Jews as opposed to Gentiles.

 

Most people have no clue about Second Temple Judaism and the cultural and sociological milieu, the various JEWISH factions and conflicts, that Jesus and the apostles operated in, especially at the beginning, before any explicit mission to Gentiles. However, it can more-or-less be deduced from the text with no knowledge of history whatsoever. Quoting John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament:

 

There is, first, the constant tension between the common people and the Jerusalem authorities (e.g. 7:13, 25-32, 48 f.; 9:22; 12:19), who are themselves sometimes designated "the Jews" even against their own people (5:10-15; 7:13; 9:18, 22). Contrariwise, in 11:45 f. and 12:9-11 "the Jews" are the common people as distinct from the authorities. And there is the more subtle division within these authorities between members of the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees (12:42; cf. 7:45-52; 19:38 f.). Moreover, the various groupings - the Pharisees (9:16), the common people (7:12, 43), the Jews who believed in him (6:66), and the Jews who did not (6:52; 10:19-21) are split among themselves.

 

Then there are the geographical divisions. Apart from the standing feud between the Jews and the Samaritans (4:9) there is a recurrent and bitter altercation between Judea and Galilee (1:46; 4:44 f.; 7:41, 52). "The Jews" for this Gospel are not merely the Jews of Palestine in general, but are, with two exceptions only (6:41 and 52), the Jews of Judea. Thus, in 7:1 we read, 'After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea because THE JEWS sought to kill him' - the RSV footnote reads 'the Judeans' (cf. also 11:7, 54). According to John, it is not Galilee but Judea that is Jesus' own home (contrast John 4:44 f. with Mark 6:1-6). Though he may come from Nazareth, it is to Judea that he really belongs, and 7:42 probably presupposes that John knows the tradition of his birth at Bethlehem. It may very well be that John means that he comes to 'his own' - Judeans - even though his own may not receive him (1:11), but disown him as a Galilean (1:46; 7.41) and even as a Samaritan (8:48).

 

John regularly designates the feasts as feasts "of the Jews" - as if anyone did not know it, let alone a Jewish audience. This becomes intelligible when we observe that, in every case but one (6:4), this is said in order to explain why it is that Jesus must go up to Judea (2:13; 5:1; 7:1-3; 11:55). It is precisely because they are feasts of "the Jews" that Jesus, a Galilean, must travel into the country of the Jews, and this is of great significance for the unfolding of his destiny (cf., especially, 7:1-9; 11:7-16).

 

With this in mind, see 3:22f;

 

After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea, and there he was spending time with them and baptizing. John was also baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there...Therefore there arose a discussion on the part of John's disciples with A JEW about purification. And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan [Jesus], to whom you have testified, behold, he is baptizing and all are coming to him.

 

Were not John, and his disciples, Jews? And yet, here is a passage that distinguishes John's disciples - Jews - from "a Jew". Notice that they are in the "land of Judea". So this "Jew" is specific to Judea. "THEREFORE there arose a discussion...." This discussion was the result ("therefore") of an implied competition between Jesus and John. That is why John concludes his reply with, "He must increase and I must decrease." Notice the result of this discussion;

 

THEREFORE, when the Lord [Jesus] knew that the PHARISEES had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John...he left Judea and went away again into Galilee. And he had to pass through Samaria (4:1).

 

This gives us strong warrant, in my opinion, to identify the "Jew" of 3:25 with the "Pharisees" of 4:1. At the very least, if this Jew was not a Pharisee himself, he was in league with them. Also, we can recognize that "Jew" and "Judean" are, at least sometimes if not always, equated in John's way of thinking.

 

If one does a little extra-Biblical study - Josephus for instance - one will find that there was a dizzying plethora of competing groups within Judaism, theological, political, and geographical. It was a very complex and messy situation. And much like the complex and messy situation among different sects of Muslims in the Mid-east today, the distinctions between "theological" and "political" have little meaning. And, as is the case in both instances, modern westerners generally have no understanding at all of the differing and competing sects, whether of Muslim groups today or Jewish groups in Jesus' time. But John did, and he expected his readers to have the same understanding without explanation.

 

At this point, I feel that I have dealt sufficiently with the phrase "the Jews" as it relates to the "feast of Tabernacles" and "Passover." In short, it is not explaining Jewish customs to Gentiles; it is delineating different sects within Judaism. What remains is to deal with the translations of  "Ravi" and "Mashiach" into their Greek equivalents, and why John felt it necessary to do so.

 

 

WHY DOES JOHN TRANSLATE HEBREW/ARAMAIC WORDS INTO GREEK?

 

Back to Arguments Index