[1] A complete bibliography can be found in Leistner, R., Antijudaismus im Johannesevangelium? (Theologie und Wirklichkeit, 3; Bern/Frankfurt a. M.: H. Lang, 1974).Google Scholar Among the more important studies are the following: Baum, G., The Jews and the Gospel: A Re-examination of the New Testament (Westminster: Newman, 1961);Google ScholarBoismard, M.-E. and Lamoullie, A., eds., L'Evangile de Jean (Synopse des Quatre Evangiles en Français, 3; Paris: Editions de Cerf, 1977), pp. 56–9;Google ScholarBornhäuser, K., Das Johannesevangelium, eine Missionsschrift für Israel (BFCT, II, 15; Gütersloh:Google ScholarBertelsmann, C., 1928);Google ScholarBowker, J. W., ‘The Origin and Purpose of St. John's Gospel’, NTS 11 (1964–1965), 398–408;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBratcher, R. J., ‘“The Jews” in the Gospel of John’, BT 26 (1975), 401–9;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (AB 29; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), pp. lxx–lxxiii;Google ScholarBultmann, R., The Gospel of John, trans. .Beasley-Murray, G. B., Hoare, R. W. N., and Riches, J. K. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), pp. 86–7;Google ScholarCasabó-Suqué, J. M., ‘Los judíos en el evangelio de Juan y el antisemitismo’, RivB 35 (1973), 115–29;Google ScholarCuming, G. J., ‘The Jews in the Fourth Gospel’, ExpTim 60 (1948–1949), 290–2;Google ScholarDekker, C., ‘Grundschrift und Redaktion im Johannesevangelium’, NTS 13 (1966–1967), 66–80;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: The University Press, 1963), p. 242,CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 2; Fortna, R., ‘Theological Use of Locale in the Fourth Gospel’, ATR Supplementary Series, 3 (03, 1974), 58–94;Google ScholarFuller, R., ‘The “Jews” in the Fourth Gospel’, Dialog 16 (1977), 31–7;Google ScholarGrässer, E., ‘Die antijüdische Polemik im Johannesevangelium’, NTS 10 (1964–1965), 74–90;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGutbrod, W., ‘Ioudaios, Israēl, Hebraios in the New Testament’, TDNT 3, 375–91;Google ScholarJocz, J., ‘Die Juden im Johannesevangelium’, Judaica 9 (1953), 129–42;Google ScholarLindais, B., The Gospel of John New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1972);Google ScholarLowe, M., ‘Who were the Ioudaioi?’, NovT 18 (1975), 101–30;Google ScholarLutgert, W., ‘Die Juden im Johannesevangelium’, Neutestamentlichen Studien für Georg Henrici zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1914), pp. 147–54;Google Scholar 3. Martyn, L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 2nd. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979);Google ScholarMeeks, W., ‘“Am I a Jew?” Johannine Chiistianity and Judaism’, Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. Neusner, J., I, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 163–86;Google ScholarSchnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to John, trans. Smyth, K. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), p. 287;Google ScholarSchneider, H., ‘“The Word was Made Flesh”: An Analysis of the Theology of Revelation in the Fourth Gospel’, CBQ 31 (1969), 344–56;Google ScholarShepherd, M. Jr, ‘The Jews in the Fourth Gospel: Another Level of Meaning’, ATR Supplementary Series, 3 (03, 1974), 95–112;Google ScholarWhite, M. C., The Identity and Function of Jews and Related Terms in the Fourth Gospel (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1972).Google Scholar

[2] See for example Schnackenburg, , John, 1, p. 287.Google Scholar There are scholars however who would propose that the peculiarly Johannine occurrence of Ioudaioi is not a unique meaning but only a characteristic usage. Most recently Lowe, M. (‘Jews’, pp. 121–4) has suggested that the term means ‘Judeans’ in most instances. Therefore the meaning is not unique to John. Although ‘meaning’ will be used in the survey, in the analysis we will speak of the Johannine ‘usage’ of the term. This Johannine usage is defined by several specific characteristics as will be described at length below.Google Scholar

It is important to recognize that even if the meaning of the term should be found to be not unique, nevertheless, in those instances which are commonly labelled ‘Johannine’ we are faced with a usage clearly different from the other uses of Ioudaioi in the FG. For example, if, as seems likely, the Ioudaioi of 11. 19, 31, 33, 36, 45, 54; 12. 9, 11, are Judeans and if the Ioudaioi of 11. 8 are also Judeans, we must still recognize that there is a mark of hostility and unbelief associated with the term in 11. 8 that is absent in the remainder of the verses.

[3] Such a suggestion was first made by J., Welihausen (Das Evangelium Johannis [Berlin: G. Reimar, 1908]),Google Scholar followed soon by F., Spitta (Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910]).Google Scholar

[4] This is not the only position taken, however. For example, Lutgert, Fortna, and Lowe have attempted to show that the term has a single meaning in the FG.

[5] Gutbrod, , ‘Ioudaios’, p. 377.Google Scholar

[6] Although their studies do not include a comprehensive analysis of the texts involved, other scholars hold the position that the Johannine Jews are to be identified with both the authorities and the common people: Boismard, Bultniann, Dekker, Dodd, Jocz, Lutgert, Meeks, Shepherd.

[7] Grässer, , ‘Polemik’, pp. 76–7: 10. 19; 11. 19, 31, 33, 36, 45; 12. 1, 11; 18. 20, 38; 19. 12, 14, 20, 21.Google Scholar

[8] Ibid.: 18. 33, 35, 39; 19. 3, 19, 21b, 21c.

[9] Ibid.: 2. 6, 13; 3.1; 4. 9; 5. 1; 6. 4; 7. 2; 11. 55; 19. 40, 42.

[10] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 3. 25; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 7. 1, 11, 13, 15; 8. 22, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 24; 13. 33; 18. 12, 14, 31, 36; 19. 7, 31, 38; 20. 19.

[11] Ibid.: 6. 41, 52; 10. 31, 33; 11. 8, 54.

[12] It is difficult to tell if Grässer intends to list all occurrences of the hostile-Jews-as-people. It is our impression that he sees the majority of instances as being the authorities. This is reflected as such in the chart. All hostile Jews are identified as authorities except where specifically identified as people.

[13] Grässer nowhere mentions 5. 15. This seems to be a simple oversight and the verse is listed as ‘authorities’ on the chart since the other verses in the context have that meaning.

[14] Schnackenbuig, R., John, 1, pp. 286–7.Google Scholar

[15] Ibid.: 4. 9a, 9b; 18. 33, 35, 39; 19. 3, 19.

[16] Ibid.: 3. 25; 4. 22; 11. 19, 31, 33, 36; 18. 20; 19. 20.

[17] Ibid.: 2. 6, 13; 3. 1; 5. 1; 6. 4; 7. 2; 11. 55; 19. 21a, 21b, 21c, 40, 42.

[18] Ibid.: 6. 41, 52; 7. 11, 15, 35; 8. 22, 31; 10. 19; 11. 45, 54; 12. 9, 11; 13. 33.

[19] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 7. 1, 13; 8. 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 24, 31, 33; 11. 8; 18. 12, 14, 31, 36, 38; 19. 7, 12, 14, 31, 38; 20. 19.

[20] Fortna, R., ‘Locale’, p. 89.Google Scholar

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 6. 41, 52; 7. 1, 13, 15, 35; 8. 22, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 24, 31, 33; 11. 8, 36; 13. 33; 18. 12, 14, 20, 31, 36, 38; 19. 7, 12, 14, 20, 21a, 31, 38; 20. 19.

[23] Ibid.: 2. 23; 7. 12, 31, 40, 43; 8. 30; 9. 9, 16; 10. 19, 20; 11. 37, 45; 12. 11, 29, 42.

[24] In addition to this, Fortna's division shows that the second aspect of the tension (that which shows a more uncertain, doubtful, divided attitude toward Jesus) is associated with another set of terms for religious authorities. In this part of Fortna's listing, the authorities are referred to as Pharisees, chief priests, rulers. If this is the case then we have good reason to suggest that not only does the term Ioudaios have different meanings, but also that the different terms for religious authorities in the gospel are consistently associated with different attitudes toward Jesus, a fact which could be important for the literary analysis of the gospel.

[25] Fortna doesnotexplicitly mentions. 10, 15; 7. 15; 8.57; 10. 24, 33. This seems to be simple oversight since the terms occur in contexts where the usage of other verses was clearly determined. There seems to be no reason for thinking that any other meaning is intended. These verse citations are included in parentheses on the chart.

[26] Bratcher, , ‘Jews’, p. 409: 2. 6, 13; 3. 1, 25; 4. 9a, 9b, 22; 5. 1; 6. 4; 7. 2; 8. 31; 11. 55; 18. 12, 35; 19. 21a, 21b, 21c, 40, 42.Google Scholar

[27] Ibid.: 11. 8, 19, 31, 33, 36, 45, 54; 12. 9, 11; 19. 20.

[28] Ibid.: 6. 41, 52; 8. 48, 52, 57; 10. 19, 24, 31, 33; 18. 20, 38; 19. 7, 12, 14.

[29] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 7. 1, 11, 13, 15, 35; 8. 22; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 13. 33; 18. 14, 31, 36; 19. 31, 38; 20. 19.

[30] In his discussion of 7. 35 Bratcher treats the Jews as attendants of the authorities. However in his fmal listing of the usage he identifies these Jews as the authorities themselves. This ambiguity is reflected in the chart.

[31] Fuller, , ‘Jews’, p. 32: 18. 33, 35, 39; 19. 3, 19, 21a.Google Scholar

[32] Ibid.: 4. 9a, 9b, 22.

[33] Ibid.: 2. 6, 13; 5. 1; 7. 2; 11. 55; 19. 40, 42.

[34] Ibid.: 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 8. 31; 10. 19; 11. 19, 31, 33, 36; 12. 9, 11.

[35] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 3. 25; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 6. 41, 52; 7. 1, 11, 13, 15, 35; 8. 22, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 24, 31, 33; 11. 8, 45; 13. 33; 18. 12, 14, 20, 31, 36, 38; 19. 7, 12, 14, 20, 21b, 21c, 31, 38; 20. 19.

[36] Inexplicably, Fuller duplicates his listing of 5. 10, 15, 16, 18 and describes them as both people and authorities. This is indicated on the chart by ‘ap’. Fuller does not treat 20. 19. This seems to be an oversight and the verse is listed as authorities in the light of his treatment of other passages where the phrase “fear of the Jews” occurred. Several passages are described by Fuller as ‘consistently distant from the Christian community, and … increasingly represented as hostile to Jesus’. Although he goes on to specify whether these Jews are authorities or people, he does not treat 7. 1, 11, 13, 15, 35; 11. 8; 13. 33, except in the original list (p. 32, n. 11). Since it cannot be determined whether they are authorities or people, they are listed simply as ‘h’. Fuller is undecided about 19. 20 and so this is listed as ‘ap’.

[37] Ibid., p. 32.

[38] Ibid., p. 33.

[39] Ibid., p. 32, n. 11.

[40] Ibid., p. 32.

[41] Ibid., pp. 32–3.

[42] Other scholars treating the Jews exclusively as authorities but not treating all the texts include: Casabó-Suqué, Lindars, Martyn. Martyn (History, p. 61) treats the Jews not as authorities in the ministry of Jesus but as the religious authorities of Jamnia whose influence is significant for the Johannine community contemporary with the Evangelist.Google Scholar

[43] Cuming, , ‘Jews’, p. 291: 2. 6, 13; 5. 1; 6. 4; 7. 2; 11.55; 19. 40, 42.Google Scholar

[44] Ibid.: 4. 9a, 9b, 22.

[45] Ibid.: 18. 33, 35, 39; 19. 3, 19, 21b, 21c.

[46] Cuming, , ‘Jews’, p. 291. Cuming admits to being unable to decide whether 3. 1, 22, 25 refer to ‘Israelites’ or ‘Judeans’. This is indicated on the chart by ‘h?’ since Cuming proposes that all Judeans except those specifically mentioned are seen as hostile to Jesus.Google Scholar

[47] Ibid., p. 291: 11. 8, 19, 31, 33, 35, 45, 54; 12. 9, 11. To this list should be added 18. 20; 19. 20, 21 because Cuming sees these verses as referring to people to whom the Evangelist is not unfriendly (‘Jews’, pp. 291–2).

[48] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 6.41, 52; 7. 1, 11, 13, 15, 35; 8. 22, 31, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 19, 24, 31, 33; 13. 33; 18. 12, 14, 31, 36, 38; 19. 7, 12, 14, 31, 38; 20. 19.

[49] Baum, ,Antisemitism, p. 101: 18. 33, 35, 39; 19. 3, 19, 21b, 21c.Google Scholar

[50] Ibid.: 2.6, 13; 3. 1; 4.9a, 9b; 5. 1; 6.4; 7.2; 11.55; 19.40, 42.

[51] Ibid.: 10. 19; 11. 19, 31, 33, 36, 45; 12. 9, 11; 18. 20, 38; 19. 12, 14, 20, 21a.

[52] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 3. 25; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 6. 41,53 (sic); 7. 1, 11, 13, 15; 8. 22, 31, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 24, 31, 33; 11. 8, 54; 13. 33; 18. 12, 14, 31, 36; 19. 7, 31, 38; 20. 19. Baum does not explicitly mention 7. 35 but it seems intended for this category.

[53] Brown, , John, , p. lxxi: 4. 9a, 9b, 22; 18. 20, 33, 35, 39; 19. 3, 19, 20, 21b, 21c, 40, 42. Although Brown does not categorize 3. 1 explicitly it seems that he considers the verse part of this group.Google Scholar

[54] Ibid.: 2.6, 13; 5.1; 6.4; 7.2; 11.55.

[55] Ibid.: 8. 31; 11. 19, 31, 33, 36, 45; 12. 9, 11.

[56] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 7. 1, 11, 13, 15, 35; 8. 22, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 24, 31, 33; 11. 8, 54; 13. 33; 18. 12, 14, 31, 36, 38; 19. 7, 12, 14, 21a, 31, 38, 20. 19.

[57] Ibid.: 6. 41, 52.

[58] Brown does not treat 3. 25 and 10. 19. This is indicated on the chart by a‘?’.

[59] White, Jews: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 5. 10, 15, 16; 6. 41; 7. 1, 11, 13, 15; 8. 22, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b, 10. 24, 31, 33; 13. 33; 18. 12, 14, 20, 31, 35, 36, 38; 19. 7, 12, 14, 31, 38; 20. 19. Although it is not explicit, White seems to include 19. 20, 21, in this group also.

[60] Ibid.: 7. 35; 8. 31; 11. 19, 31, 33, 36, 45.

[61] Ibid.: 2. 6, 13; 4. 9a, 9b; 5. 1; 6. 4; 7. 2; 11. 55; 19. 40, 42.

[62] Ibid.: 3. 1; 5. 18; 6. 52; 11. 8; 12. 9, 11.

[63] White (Jews, p. 333) assigns 4. 22 and 11. 54 to an unknown editor. However White considers the Jews in 11. 54 as well as in 5. 18; 6. 52; 11. 8 (which he assigns to another editor), to be used in the hostile sense. Therefore they are listed together with the first group on the chart. White discusses but does not come to a conclusion regarding 3. 25; this is indicated on the chart by ‘?’.

[64] Leistner, , Antijudaismus, pp. 142–4 and chart following page 215: 3. 1; 4. 9a, 9b, 22; 18. 33, 35, 39; 19. 3, 19, 21b, 21c.Google Scholar

[65] Ibid.: 2. 6, 13; 5. 1; 6. 4; 7. 2; 11. 55; 19. 40, 42.

[66] Ibid.: 10. 19; 11. 19, 31, 33, 36, 45, 54; 12. 9, 11; 18. 20, 38; 19. 12, 14, 20.

[67] Ibid.: 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 3. 25; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 6. 41, 52; 7. 1, 11, 13, 15, 35; 8. 22, 31, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 24, 31, 33; 11. 8; 13. 33; 18. 12, 14, 20, 31, 36, 38; 19. 7, 12, 14, 21a, 31, 38; 20. 19.

[68] 1. 19; 2. 18, 20; 5. 10, 15, 16, 18; 6. 41, 52; 7. 1, 11, 13, 15; 8. 22, 48, 52, 57; 9. 18, 22a, 22b; 10. 24, 31, 33; 13. 33; 18. 14, 31, 36; 19. 7, 31, 38; 20. 19.

[69] 3. 25; 8. 31; 10. 19; 11.54; 18. 20; 19. 20, 21a.

[70] See, Brown, John, p. 71;Google ScholarBratcher, , ‘Jews’, p.404;Google ScholarLindars, , John, p. 105;Google ScholarGrässer, , ‘Polemik’, p. 77;Google ScholarFortna, , ‘Locale’, p. 90, n. 89.Google Scholar

[71] 18. 36 is probably also an example of this. In 18. 36 Jesus speaks of the possibility of his followers putting up resistance lest Jesus be betrayed to the ‘Jews’. In 18. 1–2 this betrayal is spoken of as being to the cohort and the attendants of the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Jews’ in 18. 36 is probably Johannine given the hostility expressed.

[72] Brown, , John, p. lxxi.Google Scholar

[73] Fuller, , ‘Jews’, p. 33.Google Scholar

[74] Brown, , John, p. 270.Google Scholar

[75] Leistnez, , Antijudaismus, p. 143.Google Scholar

[76] The technique referred to here has been fully described by Borgen, P., Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo NovTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1965).Google Scholar

[77] See for example Dekker, , ‘Grundschrift’, pp. 774;Google Scholar and Lowe, , ‘Ioudaioi’, p. 117. According to the remainder of the gospel the Jews confine their activity to Judea (see esp. 7. 1 and 11. 8). Only 6. 41, 52 contradict this.Google Scholar

[78] Schnackenburg, (John, 1, p. 287)Google Scholar states that 7. 15 refers to the people, but in his commentary on the passage (Johannesevangellum, II, p. 184),Google Scholar he seems to treat them as authorities by distinguishing them from the ochlos of 7. 20. See also Fortna, , ‘Local’, p. 91.Google Scholar

[79] Bratcher, , ‘Jews’, p. 406.Google Scholar Yet he identifies them with the authorities in his fmal list (cf., page 409). His discussion is mentioned hee because it illustrates the problems involved more clearly than most.Google Scholar

[80] Schnackenburg, , John, 1 pp. 286–7;Google ScholarFortna, , ‘Locale’, p. 90.Google Scholar

[81] Wellhausen, (Evangelium, p. 39)Google Scholar points out that the verses are not related to what precedes and proposes that they are a later addition. Bultmann, (John, p. 307, n. 2)Google Scholar attributes 7. 33–34 to the revelatory discourse source but the remainder of the work to the Evangelist. Wilkens, W. (Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums [Zoilikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1958], pp. 101–2) also suggests that the verses do not provide a good sequence with 7. 32. He suggests that 7. 33–36 are a secondary addition formerly connected to 8. 21–29.Google Scholar

[82] Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 2, p. 207.Google Scholar

[83] Brown's, remark (John, p. 315) that chap. 7 provides an example of a ‘double stage’ where Jesus is arguing with the crowds in the foreground while the authorities are plotting his arrest in the background does not seem to fit the facts. Rather it seems to be a series of misunderstandings of Jesus. In the first instance (7. 14–25) Jesus says that his hearers judge superficially whether he has credentials for teaching since if they really knew God, they would recognize that his teaching is from God. In the second scene (7. 25–30), Jesus confronts the inhabitants of Jerusalem who say that they know of the origin of Jesus. Jesus replies that they do not know of his true origin in the Father. In the third scene (7. 31–36) Jesus confronts the decision of the authorities to arrest him with the statement that he goes away and they will not be able to find him thus indicating that they are mistaken if they think that they have real control over Jesus's freedom.Google Scholar

[84] Bratcher, , ‘Jews’, p. 407;Google ScholarGrässer, , ‘Polemik’, p. 77.Google Scholar

[85] Bratcher, , ‘Jews’, p. 407.Google Scholar

[86] For a recent study of comparative material for determining various meanings of the term see M. Lowe (‘Ioudaioi’). While Lowe provides a very helpful analysis of the comparative material, his analysis of the Johannine use seems to be inadequate and to neglect the very context he attempts to pay attention to. This is true, for example, of his treatment of 7. 13; 9. 22; 19. 38; 20. 19, where people who aie Jews are contrasted with ‘the Jews’. This usage does not seem to fit with the categories Lowe proposes, nor. does he deal with the obvious indications that these Jews are authorities and not simply common people.

[87] For a detailed discussion of this text see below.

[88] For a detailed discussion of this text see below.

[89] See for example the article on ‘loudalos’ in Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and adapted by Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).Google Scholar

[90] For a detailed discussion of this text see below.

[91] For a detailed discussion of this text see below.

[92] For a detailed discussion of this text see below.

[93] It is not clear from the context whether this is a move from Galilee to Judea or from the city to the outlying regions of Judea. The immediate context would suggest the latter since in 2. 13 it was reported that Jesus went up to Jerusalem and no change of location was specified afterward. However given the problematic character of the geographical references elsewhere in the FG, we must be cautious in reaching such a conclusion.

[94] For the reasons for including this text here see the discussion of this verse above.

[95] For example, Fuller, , ‘Jews’, p. 34;Google ScholarBrown, , John, p. 115;Google ScholarSchnackenburg, , John, 1, p. 348.Google Scholar

[96] This verse is frequently used as a starting point for determining the meaning of Ioudaioi since it seems to associate the Ioudaioi so clearly with Judea. As Fortna, says (‘Locale’, p. 89) ‘John identifies all Ioudaioi with Judea’.Google Scholar While this may be true (if we allow for the exception found in 6. 41, 52), we must add that this is true of both the hostile and the neutral use. Nevertheless to say, on the basis of this common characteristic, that there is no significant difference between what we have called the ‘neutral’ use and the ‘Johannine’ use seems to disregard several essential aspects of the usage. Dekker (‘Grundschrift’) uses 7. 1; 11. 8, 54 to show that Ioudaioi are Judeans and says that forty-one other references do not contradict it. Meeks, (‘Jew’, p. 182) takes a similar position regarding the meaning of the term.Google Scholar

[97] In 19. 7 the Jews seem to present the same charge as first proposed in 5. 18 where the Jews were clearly authorities. But it is not certain that 19. 7 is a reference to that incident. There seems to be little doubt that 19. 7 is an example of the Johannine usage however.

[98] This hostility is indicated in 7. 19.

[99] There is strong manuscript evidence for both a singular (Ioudaiou) and the plural (Ioudaiōn) readings. However it is more likely that the singular would be changed to a plural by a scribe than the reverse. This is the only example of the singular referring to a person in the FG. For a discussion of the textual problems, see Metzger, B. M. et al. , A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 205.Google Scholar Others have suggested that in fact neither of these readings is original since the sense remains awkward in either case. See Lindars, , John, pp. 165–6.Google Scholar

[100] Brown, , John, p. 153.Google Scholar

[101] Dodd, (Tradition, pp. 279–87)Google Scholar proposes that 3.22–25 is mainly a body of traditional material with editorial insertion only in 3. 24. Brown, (John, p. 153)Google Scholar modifying Boismard's thesis (‘Les traditions johanniques concernant le Baptiste’, RB 70 [1963], 25–30) proposes that 3. 22–30 are a fragment of a lerger tradition concerning the Baptist and originally followed 1. 19–34 and have been modified by insertions of the redactor in 3. 24, 28 and the parenthetical remark of 3. 26.Google Scholar

[102] The Jews in the Johannine sense are frequently in dialogue with Jesus. Most frequently they address Jesus directly: asking for a sign of his authority to run the sellers out of the Temple (2. 18–20); asking about his authority to teach (7. 14–19); speculating about what Jesus means when he says that he will go away in a little while (8. 21–29); challenging Jesus's view of them as ‘slaves’ (8. 31–47); charging that he is a Samaritan and demented (8. 48–50); rejecting Jesus's promise of eternal life (8.51–59); asldng him if he is the Christ (10. 24–30); accusing him of blasphemy (10. 33–38). There is also one reference in the Last Supper scene back to a dialogue with the Jews (13. 33). In some other cases, the Jews already in dialogue with Jesus are presented as talking among themselves. Jesus then responds to their aside: they have difficulty with Jesus's words that he has come down from heaven (6. 41–5 1); they have difficulty understanding how he can give them his flesh to eat (6. 52–58); they do not understand what Jesus means when he says he will go away soon and then return (7. 33–36); they pick up stones to throw at him (10. 31–32). In two other instances of dialogue they interrogate witnesses to a miracle about Jesus (5. 10–15; 9. 18–21). These instances account for seventeen of the uses of the Jews in the Johannine sense and show this dialogue to be a major interest of the author.

[103] Brown, , John, pp. 354–5, 361.Google Scholar

[104] Notably, Bultmann, John, p. 433.Google Scholar

[105] So also Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 2, p. 259.Google Scholar

[106] The text would read smoothly and would echo the typical Johannine structure if we took the usage as originally Johannine, reading ‘elegen oun ho Γesous pros tous… Ioudaious…’. There is no evidence of this however.

[107] So Brown, , John, pp. 351, 354;Google ScholarLindars, , John, p. 323.Google Scholar

[108] In 10. 22 there is the beginning of a new feast and presumably the lapse of a significant amount of time since the previous occasion, yet the development of themes directly continues and presupposes the previous context.

[109] Schnackenburg, , Johannesevangelium, 2, p. 349. The use of palin in 10. 19 lends weight to this position.Google Scholar

[110] Dodd, , Tradition, pp. 242–3.Google Scholar

[111] ’ Brown, (John, p. 444) says that ‘in its use of the Jews’ vs. 54 is certainly distinct from the normal pattern of chap xi’. Admittedly the relationship between Jesus and the Jews is different from that described in chap. 11, but this seems due to the recent order of the chief priests and the Pharisees. If taken as the hostile sense, it clearly contradicts 7. 1Google Scholar

[112] See for example 11. 19, 31, 33, 36; 12. 9, 11.

[113] Brown, (John, p. 444)Google Scholar suggests that this may be a duplicate of the withdrawal account of 10. 39–40. White (Jews, , p. 225)Google Scholar and Brown, (John, p. 444) caution against taking the sequence here as chronological. This is an important caution. However the alternate reading does give a plausible account of the sequence following the decision of the Sanhedrin. This sequence does not agree with that of the passages where the Jews are the authorities, suggesting that the latter is the Johannine sequence.Google Scholar

[114] Schnackenburg, (Johannesevangelium, 2, p. 453) suggests that 11.54 re-enforces the statements of 7. 1, 4, etc., describing the difficulty of Jesus's walking freely among the Jews. This view overlooks the ouk eti of 11. 54 which does not stand in a line of development with other passages such as 7. 1 but in contradiction to them.Google Scholar

[115] White, (Jews, p. 231) thinks that the phrase ‘all the Jews’ means ‘a complete number’ and therefore could not refer to the entire nation. This seems overly literal.Google Scholar

[116] Bratcher, (‘Jews, ’, pp. 408–9)Google Scholar states that the term here means ‘simply people’. Yet in his summary he lists it with those people hostile to Jesus. It is difficult to know If this is a mistake or whether he implicitly links these Jews with the term ‘world’ (which is ‘hostile’). He considers the similar uses in 19. 20, 21a as the ‘neutral’ use. Leistner, (Antifudaismus, p. 104) admits that the term can easily be taken to refer to the people but says that it could also refer to the Sanhedrin since Jesus had preached before the officials. This seems unwarranted.Google Scholar

[117] Fuller, (‘Jews’, pp. 34–5)Google Scholar apparently misunderstands the text of 18. 20. He proposes that ‘I have always taught in synagogues and in the Temple, where all the Jews come together (synerchontai)’ is a parallel of Mk. 14. 53 ‘Then they led Jesus off to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the scribes came together (synerchontal).’ However as is clear from the context in John, it is the general public that is said to assemble in the temple and synagogues; Jesus describes his ministry as ‘speaking openly to the world’ (18. 20). That he did not speak only to a select group is precisely the point in John's account. Synerchesthai is not a technical term for the assembly of the religious authorities but refers to any gathering of people as can be seen from a glance at general gospel use (e.g. Mk., 3. 20;Google ScholarLk., 5. 1;Google ScholarJn., 11. 33).Google Scholar

[118] White, (Jews, , p. 244)Google Scholar admits the difficulty of deciding the identity of the Jews here and suggests an editorial addition of ‘the chief priests’ to the original ‘Jews’ (in the hostile sense). Leistner, (Antijudaismus, p. 137) allows for the neutral use of the term, but on the basis of the entire context concludes that the term refers specifically to the high priestly group. This is not convincingGoogle Scholar