He mentions and accounts for this. It proves his case.
I’m still not buying it. I think the author needs to read his Scriptures a bit more closely.
(At this point, perhaps I should ask: are
you, by chance, the author?)
See Matthew 27. Everywhere you read “Jew” he says the translation should state “Judaean.”
There’s
literally only three instances in Mt 27! One by Pilate, one by soldiers, one in the inscription! That hardly proves the case…! Especially since…
To outsiders, Judaeans often called themselves that, but within themselves they said Israelites.
… that’s not so. Take a look at Acts 2.
These people – all Jews, and all in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost – identify themselves:
Πάρθοι καὶ Μῆδοι καὶ Ἐλαμεῖται, καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν, Ἰουδαίαν τε καὶ Καππαδοκίαν, Πόντον καὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν,
They understand the word “Ἰουδαίαν” as defining a
location – after all, they’re distinguishing it here from Cappadocia, Asia, Pontus, etc. Who are these people, then? “Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι”. Not
Judeans and
converts (after all, what does it mean to ‘convert’ to an ethnographic group or a geographical area?)! No… these people are
Jews and converts to Judaism!
Luke identifies who these people are, as well: “Ἦσαν δὲ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ κατοικοῦντες Ἰουδαῖοι, ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς” – they’re
devout Jews! It’s a religious designation, not an ethno-geographic one! I mean, I love the Steelers, but you’d never describe me as a “devout Pittsburgher”, would you?
Look – there were
many terms that were used in ways that were more or less synonymous.
Yes, they referred to themselves as ‘Israelites’. Yet, they were also in the practice of calling themselves ‘Jews’, even when the designation wasn’t geographical.
