What does "Jew" mean in the Bible?

[Pellman]

When we encounter “Jew” in the New Testament it seems to me that it can mean possibly three things. The Greek word is Ioudaios, literally Judean, which could be:

1. An inhabitant of Judea. This usage would explain why the authors often write “the Jews” in contrast to Jesus and his followers, since they were from Galilee. In this since the first Christians, and Jesus Himself, were not “jews”.
2. A person of the tribe of Judah. Thus Jesus, who was of the tribe of Judah (house of David), was described in Samaria by the woman at the well as a *Ioudaios, *a “Jew”.

*3. Out in the wide world, a person of a certain ethnicity, culture, religion associated with the region of Judea, even if not strictly of Judah or Judea. *Thus, Paul, of the tribe of Benjamin and not from Judea, describes himself also as a Jew.

With this in mind, we can see that the Gospels are not necessarily hostile to people we think of as Jews. When for instance, John writes,

“After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him”

it would make more sense to translate it as

“After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the **Judeans **sought to kill him”

However, even though this seems just amazingly obvious once one sees it, I must admit that it came out of my own head. I have never heard or read it anywhere. And that makes me suspicious of my conclusion

So am I wrong here?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Let me take a shot at this…

After the reign of King Solomon, the Kingdon of Israel split up. Every tribe but that of Benjamin split of from the kingdom of David’s royal line and formed the kingdom of Israel. Benjamin remained in the kingdom of Judea, called so because it consisted primarily of the descendants of Judah. The kingdom of Israel was conquered and its inhabitants dispersed acroos the known world. That is part of how there were Jews in all different area of the Roman Empire.

Those who were in the northern kingdom (Israel) at some point lost track of their clan heritage. They had no idea whether they were of Dan, or Ephraim, or any otehr tribe.

Those who were dispersed across the world were very generally known as Israelites. Jew and Israelite are not synonyms. Jew refers particularly to those in Judea.

 

[puzzleannie]

in John’s gospel when he describes the Jews and their dealings with Christ he is usually speaking of the Jewish leadership, usually the temple leadership (which in the minds of many of his co-religionists was corrupt in that day), and by extension the quasi-Jewish court of Herod Antippas, in otherwords, those among Jewish leadership who were collaborators with the Romans or who accommodated Roman rule and Hellenistic culture too much.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .
With this in mind, we can see that the Gospels are not necessarily hostile to people we think of as Jews. When for instance, John writes,

“After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him”

it would make more sense to translate it as

“After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the **Judeans **sought to kill him”

However, even though this seems just amazingly obvious once one sees it, I must admit that it came out of my own head. I have never heard or read it anywhere. And that makes me suspicious of my conclusion

So am I wrong here?

I have seen something, by Scott Hahn I think, that supports that. It makes good sense.

 

[Pellman]

Tim, I don’t think that it is established that the lost ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel are related to the Diaspora Jews of the Roman period. At least, the Jewish communities of places like Antioch, Damascus, Rome, Alexandria were of clearly groups associated with the former kingdom of Judah. That is, they were “Jews” in the sense I have proposed above.

Reading about the lost ten tribes is filled with much speculation. But one group nearly certainly is descended from the former northern kingdom and that is the Samarians. Their religion was–and is–Torah based. But in Jesus’ time they were not considered to be Jews–even though they are children of Israel.

And this distinction fits with my assessment, doesn’t it?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Tim, I don’t think that it is established that the lost ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel are related to the Diaspora Jews of the Roman period. At least, the Jewish communities of places like Antioch, Damascus, Rome, Alexandria were of clearly groups associated with the former kingdom of Judah. That is, they were “Jews” in the sense I have proposed above.

Reading about the lost ten tribes is filled with much speculation. But one group nearly certainly is descended from the former northern kingdom and that is the Samarians. Their religion was–and is–Torah based. But in Jesus’ time they were not considered to be Jews–even though they are children of Israel.

And this distinction fits with my assessment, doesn’t it?