Jews? Or Judeans? Can Fixing Nomenclature Save Lives?

Jews? Or Judeans? Can Fixing Nomenclature Save Lives? December 31, 2019
Christians are responsible for persecutions against Jews
Photo by Jean Carlo Emer on Unsplash

Jews should be read Judeans in our Bibles and lectionary, and this correction could help us eventually bury the criminal absurdity that Jewish people killed Christ.

The lights of Christmas and Hanukkah are dimmed by hatred and violence in Trumpland. Once more, another antisemitic attack in this country turns bloody. Sadly, hate crimes committed against Jews in the U.S. have been rising for years. We American Christians would sure like to believe that we are safely removed from the possibility of genocidal acts, that we have evolved past pogroms and anything remotely like an Adolf Hitler. But no matter how pleasant our dream-world is, awake is better. Intellectual dishonesty and denial debilitate transformation and the shootings and stabbings keep coming.

Fruit from an Unofficial Christian Tradition

Our Church, and especially its hierarchy, have made intellectual dishonesty and denial into an art form. This is especially true when it comes to the long history of hateful violence committed against Jews.

John Paul II the Late, the first pope (in the modern sense) ever to visit a synagogue (as known after 500 CE), was repeatedly praised for his commitment to Catholic-Jewish dialogue. He even asked for forgiveness for actions and displays of antisemitism committed by Christians against Jews throughout history. But look closer at his statements: never is the Catholic Magisterium guilty according to JPII, despite its direct role in these horrors which is easy to demonstrate. He expunges from memory bishops and priests who supported the Nazis (even with the papal limousine that once bore the swastika!).

We Christians, one and all, need to wake up to this sinister hatred which we have mothered and nursed down through the centuries. Despite the many sharp differences between us, one unspoken doctrine has been treasured on both sides of the Tiber and Bosporus—lethal hatred of Jews and damning them as “Christ killers.” Just because we don’t defend or advocate the Holocaust in a formal teaching, doesn’t mean our hands remain un-bloodied of what happened.

The same thing can be said of all the December attacks against Jews worldwide, including the stabbing incident at a rabbi’s home in Monsey, New York. Christianity down through the ages has played a part in making these horrors happen.

The Sinning Church

Author Garry Wills makes a fascinating and an insightful comment in this regard, in his “Papal Sin, Structures of Deceit,” p. 17—

“Let us apply that kind of thinking to a current situation. The teaching church says that abortion and contraception are mortal sins and crimes against human persons. Is the church guilty of those crimes (assuming, for the sake of argument, that they are such)? No, says the Vatican, because the Pope has condemned them. On the other hand, polls confirm that a majority of Catholics (88 percent in 1993) accept contraceptive methods in theory, and those in a position to act on that acceptance do so. Catholics are also no different from the rest of the population in the number of abortions they undergo. The church, then, is ‘committing’ abortion and contraception, though its leaders say that they must not. In the same way, Catholics were active in the Nazi state, even though their leaders (some of them, some of the time) told them not to be.”

A Long Way to Go

Have there been improvements in these regards? Yes, but not enough. And even though there have been tremendous improvements compared to previous centuries, those improvements came at a hefty price on the Jewish side. I am talking about the cost of millions of lives for the Christian wake-up call. But admittedly we actually have inter-religious dialogue now between Jews and Christians. This RECENT marvel, born only in the 20th century, is a great first step. It would be injustice to not credit JPII with making breakthroughs there, despite his shortcomings. A child of the 70s, I have yet to hear Jews called “perfidious” at liturgy on Good Friday.

In an earlier post exposing our cherished “allegory-gone-wild” Patristic style of reading the Gospels, I showed the alarming tendency among the Fathers both East and West to turn Jesus’ parables into anti-Semitic rants. Throughout Christian times, preachers everywhere have filled the centuries with charging the Jews with deicide. Seminaries taught this hate as virtue. All this fueled the pogroms and other crimes. And now we have popular Catholic fundamentalistic authors, self-proclaimed “defenders of the Church,” who champion Patristic allegorizing.

My fifty-six year old friend, a college professor of history, tells me as a boy of Irish priests explaining that during Lent it was virtuous to “sock a Jew in the face” for denying and killing the Lord. This man loves the Catholic Church and has a photographic memory. There are many stories like this from many people. We need to face them and stop whitewashing the Magisterial record.

Getting Practical

But what if I told you, that in addition to the soul-searching we Catholics and other Christians must do regarding our historical treatment of our Abrahamic kin, there was something we could do right now to help this? It’s simple—whenever reading the Scriptures in English, scratch out every reference to JEW, JEWS, or JEWISH, and write there JUDEAN or JUDEANS. All lectors—every time you are prompted to read JEW, JEWS, or JEWISH, read aloud instead JUDEAN or JUDEANS.

Any and all mention of “Jew” and “Jews” should be removed from our English translations of Bible, missals, and lectionary. They are always wrong translations. There is nothing Jewish before 500 CE.  Therefore, there are no Jews in the Bible (by the way, there are no Christians there, either—nothing Christian until 325 CE). Yehudim and Ioudaioi properly translate to JUDEAN, not JEWS. Our Jewish brothers and sisters did not betray Christ—they could not have done that. Their branch on the Abrahamic tree is parallel to ours, a sister shoot, not the root.

Scholarly Advice

Biblical Scholar John Elliott writes:

“Jesus was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’. This is true at diverse levels and stages of discourse. For one thing, Jesus was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’ in the sense that these terms are used today in ordinary discourse.

“As Jacob Neusner and a growing number of scholars have been emphasizing for some time now, the concept ‘Jew’ as understood today derives not from the first century but from the fourth and following centuries CE. It denotes persons shaped by and oriented to not only Torah and Tanakh but Mishnah, Midrashim and Talmudim.

“In similar fashion the name ‘Christian’ as used and understood today designates persons marked more by doctrines and events of the fourth and later centuries (trinity of the godhead, double natures of Christ, consolidating and hierarchically structured catholic church) than by those of the first.

“Thirty years ago Rosemary Radford Ruether had already pointed out that it was in the fourth century that Judaism and Christianity assumed the features by which they are known today. Indeed, Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin (‘Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism’ p. 6) cites Ruether with approval and aptly describes both collectivities as ‘twins in the womb’ until the fourth century.”

Elliott continues:

“To call Jesus a ‘Jew’ or a ‘Christian’, as these words are understood in the vernacular today, not only confuses the matter historically, but has led to disastrous social and inter-religious consequences.

“Despite the growing number of scholars in agreement with these positions (see below), use of ‘Jew’ and ‘Judaism’ in reference to Israel and Israelites in the Second Temple period and use of ‘Christian’ and ‘Christianity’ in reference to Jesus and his earliest followers continue unabated in both professional and lay circles.”

Tour-de-force for Judean

In the lexicon entry on Ἰουδαῖος in “A Greek-English Lexicon on the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature” (p. 478), scholar Frederick Danker laments that:

“Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ἰουδαῖος with ‘Jew’, for many readers or auditors of the Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.”

To understand these arguments, and to grasp why calling Jews Christ killers is not only grossly evil but ridiculous besides, please read John Elliott’s tour-de-force on the subject, here:

Jesus the Israelite Was Neither a `Jew’ Nor a `Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature

Conclusion

Cleaning up our nomenclature is the next step to healing from the ancient Christian disease of hating Jews. Saying “Judean” rather than “Jew” isn’t just semantics. While making this important change will not magically sweep away all antisemitism in the Church and greater world, it is nevertheless a great step in the direction of saving lives.

Tragically, there have been but two tragic responses from Christians toward Jews down through the ages. The first and overwhelmingly more often chosen response is cursing and hating the Jews as murderers of Christ. The second, more recent option, is racist Zionism, which sees the Israeli government incapable of doing any wrong. Both dehumanize, one by treating Jews as if they were a disease, and the other, by treating Jews as if they were angels.

God have mercy on our world and on all the families affected by the recent attack in New York.

"Time to dump men as leaders, and make the priests, bishops and popes WOMEN.They couldn't ..."

Hero Worship Fails: Jean Vanier Falls
"Right now I am more concerned as to whether there is anything you would like ..."

Hero Worship Fails: Jean Vanier Falls

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ame

    The priority should be asking our contemporary Jewish neighbors what they need from us to ensure their safety.

  • Erp

    And also whether they consider Judaism not present in the first century. To say “There is nothing Jewish before 500 CE” is, I suspect, a grave insult especially when juxtaposed with “by the way, there are no Christians there [1st century], either—nothing Christian until 325 CE” and thereby making Judaism younger than Christianity. What happened in 500 CE to make Jews Jews? 325 CE was presumably chosen because of the Council of Nicaea (making Arian Christians not Christians).

    The only people responsible for Jesus’s death are those who actually arranged it. No one is guilty for something their ancestors did (and by this time we [especially those tracing ancestry to former areas of the Roman Empire or adjacent regions] are likely all descended from those arranging the death or none of us are). When Matthew 27: 24-25 is read it has to be dealt with and changing Jews to Judeans is not going to help. Did Pilate have the ability to pass the blame to the crowd? Did the crowd have the ability to lay guilt on their descendants? Did the conversation between Pilate and the crowd actually happen or was it written to excuse the Roman authorities from guilt or for other reasons? That it was invented seems likely given that Pilate according to Philo and Josephus had no hesitation in killing perceived rebels plus bystanders.

  • Fellow Dying Inmate

    “And also whether they consider Judaism not present in the first century. To say ‘There is nothing Jewish before 500 CE’ is, I suspect, a grave insult especially when juxtaposed with ‘by the way, there are no Christians there [1st century], either—nothing Christian until 325 CE’ and thereby making Judaism younger than Christianity. What happened in 500 CE to make Jews Jews? 325 CE was presumably chosen because of the Council of Nicaea (making Arian Christians not Christians).”

    If you read John Elliott’s tour de force included within the piece you would not be asking this. Biblical Scholar John Elliott writes:

    “Distinguishing between insider and outsider groups and their differing nomenclatures is essential for accurate interpretation and translation. Jesus and his earliest followers, evidence demonstrates, were called ‘Israelites’, ‘Galileans’ or ‘Nazoreans’ by their fellow Israelites. ‘Israel’, ‘Israelites’ were the preferred terms of self-designation among members of the house of Israel when addressing other members—not ‘Ἰουδαῖος’, ‘Jew’ or ‘Judaism’. Modern interpreters and translators of the Bible, it is argued, should respect and follow this insider preference. Ἰουδαῖος, an outsider coinage, is best rendered ‘Judaean’, not ‘Jew’, to reflect the explicit or implied connection with Judaea. It was employed by Israelites when addressing outsiders as an accommodation to outsider usage. The concepts ‘Jew’,‘Jewish’ and ‘Christian’ as understood today are shaped more by fourth century rather than first-century CE realities and hence should be avoided as anachronistic designations for first-century persons or groups. Use of ‘Christian’ is best restricted to its three NT appearances. The use of appropriate nomenclature is crucial for minimizing historical and social inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

    Therefore, Elliott and scholars hold that “Jesus was neither a ‘Jew’ [post-500 CE] nor a ‘Christian’ [post-325 CE[. This is true at diverse levels and stages of discourse. For one thing, Jesus was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’ in the sense that these terms are used today in ordinary discourse.

    “As Jacob Neusner and a growing number of scholars have been emphasizing for some time now, the concept ‘Jew’ as understood today derives not from the first century but from the fourth and following centuries CE. It denotes persons shaped by and oriented to not only Torah and Tanakh but Mishnah, Midrashim and Talmudim. (See Jacob Neusner, Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, p. ix.)

    “In similar fashion the name ‘Christian’ as used and understood today designates persons marked more by doctrines and events of the fourth and later centuries (trinity of the godhead, double natures of Christ, consolidating and hierarchically structured catholic church) than by those of the first. (please see Rosemary Radford Ruether, ‘Judaism and Christianity: Two Fourth-Century Religions’, Sciences Religieuses/Studies in Religion 2, 1972, pp. 1-10)

    “Thirty years ago Rosemary Radford Ruether had already pointed out that it was in the fourth century that Judaism and Christianity assumed the features by which they are known today. Indeed, Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin (Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999], p. 6) cites Ruether with approval and aptly describes both collectivities as ‘twins in the womb’ until the fourth century.

    “To call Jesus a ‘Jew’ or a ‘Christian’, as these words are understood in the vernacular today, not only confuses the matter historically, but has led to disastrous social and inter-religious consequences.

    “In the lexicon entry on Ἰουδαῖος in A Greek-English Lexicon on the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2000, p. 478), Frederick Danker laments that:

    “Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ἰουδαῖος with ‘Jew’, for many readers or auditors of the Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.”

    Elliott continues:

    “Despite the growing number of scholars in agreement with these positions (see below), use of ‘Jew’ and ‘Judaism’ in reference to Israel and Israelites in the Second Temple period and use of ‘Christian’ and ‘Christianity’ in reference to Jesus and his earliest followers continue unabated in both professional and lay circles.”

    See A.T. Kraabel, ‘The Roman Synagogue: Six Disputable Assumptions’, JJS 33 (1982), pp. 445-64; Robert J. Miller (ed.), The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1992);

    Bruce J. Malina, Windows on the World of Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), p. xv;

    Richard A. Horsley, ‘The Death of Jesus’, in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 395-422 (398);

    idem, Galilee: History, Politics, People (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995);

    Helmut Koester, ‘The Historical Jesus and the Historical Situation of the Quest: An Epilogue’, in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 535-46 (541-42);

    idem, ‘Historic Mistakes Haunt the Rela-tionship of Christianity and Judaism’, Biblical Archaeological Review 21.2 (1995), pp. 26-27

    John H. Elliott, ‘Jesus was neither a “Jew” nor a “Christian”: Dangers of Inappropriate Nomenclature’ (paper delivered at the International Meeting of the Context Group, Prague, Czech Republic, 21–24 May 1997);

    John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation and Commentary (AB, 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 6;

    John J. Pilch, ‘Are There Jews and Christians in the Bible?’, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 53 (1997), pp. 119-25;

    John J. Pilch, ‘Jews and Christians’, in idem, The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), pp. 98-104;

    Philip F. Esler, Galatians (New Testament Readings; London and New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 4;

    Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans:The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), pp. 62-74;

    Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 32-34;

    Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 44-46.

  • Fellow Dying Inmate

    Note that some of these scholars are Jewish. Why would anyone be insulted gravely or even lightly? For learning something new, something different? The faith-tree of Abraham has many parallel branches which grow out from the same shoot. This is a wonderful thing to learn!

    “What happened in 500 CE to make Jews Jews? ”

    As Elliott explains, “the concept ‘Jew’ as understood today derives not from the first century but from the fourth and following centuries CE. It denotes persons shaped by and oriented to not only Torah and Tanakh but Mishnah, Midrashim and Talmudim [compiled and completed in those later times]… As Jacob Neusner and others have recommended, ‘Jew’and ‘Jewish’ should therefore be reserved for persons and conditions subsequent to the Mishnah and the Mishnaic period.”

    “Philip Esler in fact insists that the translation of Ἰουδαῖος with ‘Jew’ is ‘morally questionable’ inasmuch as the word ‘Jew’ imposes on the Judaeans of Jesus’ day ‘associations derived from the troubled, indeed, often terrible history of the Jews’ of later centuries. Between the Jews of the post-Constantinian age and the Judaeans of Jesus’ day there is a vast temporal, political and cultural gulf and much troubled water under the bridge. The conflicts between Christians and Jews of later time must not be read into the accounts of relations between Judaeans and the Jesus movement. Distinguishing Judaeans from Jews can aid in preventing such a misreading.”

    “‘Judaism’ is a term that is equally misleading. It is a transliteration of Ἰουδαῖσμός, a rarely used Greek term having no Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent. Ἰουδαῖσμός appears most infrequently in the Israelite writings, in contrast to its popularity today, and was in no way a conventional term of Israelite parlance. It was employed first in the Maccabean period to designate not a social collectivity but a Judaean way of behavior. Accordingly, using ‘Judaism’ today as a collective term for Judaeans around the turn of the eras is linguistically inaccurate since it identified not a community but a type of conduct. Socially it gives the false impression of a social consolidation, ideational consensus, and common practice that did not exist among the diverse parties of Second Temple Israel. Over a decade ago Helmut Koester rightly urged eliminating the term ‘Judaism’ from discussions of the historical Jesus. It is high time that we finally acted on this wise proposal.”

    But what about the tremendous BENEFITS of seeing Jesus as Jewish? Elliott and friends DO acknowledge these many goods: “Conceiving of Jesus as a ‘Jew’ in the modern era and especially since the Second World War and the Holocaust, has had the merit of locating him, his family, his initial followers, and his world of vision and memory properly within the House of Israel, rather than imagining them, as did German National Socialist exegetes and anti-Semites, as some kind of ‘Aryans’ or non-Semites. Speaking of Jesus as a Jew has countered the senseless notion that Jesus had no roots in Israel and is understandable in isolation from Israel, and that the movement associated with him, commonly called ‘Christianity’, was some version of a new religion or cult in first-century Palestine. It has required people, both Jews and non-Jews alike, to think of him in specifically Jewish terms; it has obligated present Jews to deal with him as ‘one of us’ and it has obligated present Christians to grapple with their roots in the history of the people they now know as Jews. The thoroughgoing Jewishness of Jesus is a fundamental starting point for genuine dialogue between present-day Jews and Christians.”

    But Elliott says also: “Nevertheless,‘Jew’ is still a misleading identifier of Jesus and ‘Israelite’ should be preferred. Calling Jesus a ‘Jew’ obscures the fact that he was a Galilean rather than a Judaean, specifically a Galilean Israelite rather than a Judaean Israelite. It has hindered appreciation and further analysis of the economic, political and socio-cultural differences between Galileans and Judaeans in Palestine of the first century. Consequently it has contributed toward misinterpretation of several features of the Gospel stories, including the significance of the Galilee-Judaea contrasts.It denies, or at least obscures, the fact that he and his followers were regarded in their own day by their own people as Galileans and not as a party of ‘Jews’ or ‘Judaeans’. Like the term ‘Christian’, it is also an anachronistic identifier that blurs the reality of Jesus as a representative of first-century rather than fourth-century Israel, even though there are numerous aspects of continuity between the Israel of the Mishnaic and post-Mishnaic periods and the Second Temple period of Jesus’ day. After having taught a course at University of San Francisco for over twenty years on ‘Jesus the Jew’ with my colleague Rabbi David Davis in which we stressed the thoroughgoing ‘Jewishness’ of Jesus, I would now rename that course ‘Jesus the Israelite’ and gladly sacrifice alliteration for historical accuracy.”

  • Fellow Dying Inmate

    “Did the conversation between Pilate and the crowd actually happen or was it written to excuse the Roman authorities from guilt or for other reasons? That it was invented seems likely given that Pilate according to Philo and Josephus had no hesitation in killing perceived rebels plus bystanders.”

    Agreed. And what parallels does it have in the other Synoptics also?

    “changing Jews to Judeans is not going to help”

    Disagree. It will indeed, as explained above.

  • Fellow Dying Inmate

    Happy New Year, Ame

  • Ame

    Happy New Year to you too