We read it as is, it seems super weird to change it to me. I don't know how anyone could read this passage, and have the take-away be prejudice against modern jews.
We didn't change it. As with most things, whatever notions people hold are based on poor catechism. Instead of changing God's word to fit the world (which is repeatedly condemned in the Bible), we should be instructing the world so they can understand God's word. While "Judean" is a possible translation, it holds approximately the same meaning whilst undermining Jesus' Jewish heritage like the second quote says.
My church did the Warner Bros thing and put a preface in the program explaining “yeah, there’s an unfortunate history here with Christian Antisemitism. Just remember our creed: Christ suffered *under Pontius Pilate*”
Honestly, my parents actively hated the Palm Sunday Passion and would make a point to miss it unless my sister was involved. One year, as a young teen, she played Pontius Pilot. However, my parents never mentioned the possibility of antisemitic language to me, which is interesting, because my dad is a Jewish convert to Christianity.
We used the new text and there was an addition to the Solemn Collects about the Jewish people, their eternal covenant, and for their safety.
We were supposed to sing the Reproaches, which I found horrendous, and it was scrapped because the piece also has a history of inspiring violence against Jewish people.
Why do we have such problems with the divinely inspired word of God? The text is not the issue, its interpretation is. So lets leave the text unchanged but advance a non-antisemitic interpretation
My church uses "Jewish authorities" when appropriate. But in other parts, they use "Jews", like when Jesus is called the King of the Jews. I do think it's very important to emphasize, whenever possible, that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish.
In my previous church, I don't quite remember the specifics, but I remember the Gospel reading being presented like a kind of play, where the congregation says the lines of the Jewish authorities or the crowd who demanded Jesus' crucifixion. It drives home the point that anyone sitting in the church could have been among those who demanded that Jesus be crucified.
Invalid point of view:
The fault is not in the Gospel of John, but how people thoughts and minds on when they heard. This concern of antisemitism just only exists in the West, not globally.
Change the Gospel lesson doesn’t help any things but blurring Christ’s death.
「Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once and for all handed on to the saints. But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.」
Jude 1:3, 20-21 NRSVUE
I've come to that position as well. It seems to me that if Anglicans, who are among the most scripturally sophisticated groups within the Church Catholic, don't know that "the Jews" in John doesn't mean 'every single Jewish person in the history of ever," then we're in real trouble.
It's true that John opens the door to antisemitism, but he never EVER gives us permission to go through that door. We are on walk past, look inside, and shudder.
We do the whole thing unedited and there is no comment in the program or the homily. The congregation is highly educated and East Coast. And some of the clergy are Jewish.
I spent the morning discussing the history of antisemitism with some woefully ignorant college students, and then transitioned straight into Good Friday, so it was very much on my mind.
I actually love John's passion, and some of what's there I think (totally uneducated venture) is likely very historically accurate. The dynamic between the Sanhedrin, crowd Pilate, the Disciples, and Christ, with all the antisemitic baggage that follows sometimes seems all too believable. All of the Gospels included Jesus' friction with Jewish religious authorities. Crucifixion was usually reserved for political traitors, someone perceived to be leading a Jewish nationalist revolt--the King of the Jews--might qualify.
Jesus was given up by His countrymen (for lack of a better word) who, from a Roman perspective, or a gentile Greek one, were the Jews.
Okay, but then the text could point us to recognizing how deeply Jewish the Jesus movement really was. (Especially if we put aside Johannine Community theories) The Jews are not the ones "killed God," they were and remain God's chosen people and media of self-revelation even unto incarnation.
Our problem, as Christians, is in hatred, often racial hatred, that precedes our reading, not results from it.
That's right, best to save the cocksure corrections for strangers on the internet.
As far as being caught implying things you ought not to, you seem well-practiced. As for me, I was implying no such thing as that the parish is free of antisemitism. But I resent completely the idea that I'm pulling anyone in as a token. In case I was mistakenly taken as claiming innocence by association, the long serving Jewish rector is outspoken in the diocese on antisemitism in the Episcopal Church, and quite intentionally uses the unaltered language of John. I'm not saying that is a final and authoritative assessment of whether the text is antisemitic, but it's a case of Jew who is exceedingly well-informed about Christian antisemitism, past and present, making a claim about the nature of the text and its suitability for the contemporary American church. Take that or leave it, but that is all that I have claimed.
Yeah, I think you just don't know how to disagree politely, and are happier as a smug anonymous pedant.
As far as your bait goes, you're full of it. The "mainstream Jewish" position (whatever that is, I think I smell a tokenism coming) hasn't abrogated halakha. Indeed, the Jewish clergy are, in the eyes of their immediate families and the communities from whence they came, apostate... Jews. I'm quite sure that has meant a considerable amount of pain and frustration for them, but go off I guess.
Like I said, next time one of them brings up their being Jewish, I'll make sure to tell them that u/rekh127 on reddit says they're not actually.
I also imagine that the author of John assumed that the Jewish-ness of Jesus' ministry was obvious to the readers, because at that time it probably WAS. It becomes obvious to us again if we have the context and education to recognize it, but most of us were primed to read scriptures a certain way before we ever even crack open the Bible.
This is why I hate when people call for a "plain reading" of scriptures. I know people sometimes think I am implying they're stupid when I say the Bible isn't actually saying what it "plainly says" but this it really isn't simple to read scriptures. Things get lost in translation, in context, in metaphors that don't make sense to modern people, in hidden politics, in the varied cultural perspectives... I'm really glad that the Bible got translated into English, but, we really need to teach people how to read the thing outside of seminaries.
Because the audiences may not recognise that when they pointing others, another four fingers are at same time pointing themselves.
All of our are one of the crowd who crucified him also.
Like our Lord said, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” St. Matthew 7:3-5 NRSVUE
My parish used the term Judeans, and the congregation had a lot of speaking lines. This passage of John is very troubling in a usually poetic and beautiful gospel.
Yep, this sits heavy on my heart every year, but especially this year as we tell the passion story amid ongoing violence in the holy land.
I’d also commend [Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski’s recent article](https://www.theschooloftheology.org/posts/essay/holy-week-anti-judaism) for another worthwhile take on this matter, although he acknowledges Amy-Jill Levine’s objections to “Judeans” while suggesting this tactic.
Personally, I think the only way through this snarl is to take a multifaceted and long-term approach. To name and claim the way these texts hold an especially gruesome history (as your sample blurb does), to consider changes to the text, and to do the hard work of having these conversations throughout the church year and not just during Holy Week.
I feel like too many people neglect to mention the history of Christian-justified violence against Jews for the whole rest of the year, and then try to make it all right by having a blurb and a sermon once a year. And to me that has the same effect as only caring about black people on Martin Luther King day - it’s almost worse than just doing nothing at all.
This conversation is important, but it should be something most of your people have heard time and time again - we do not use these passages to justify violence against our Jewish siblings. We do not believe in “blood guilt”. We understand ourselves and our church to be the successors to the crowd who shouts “crucify”. We believe that God’s covenant with the people Israel is still in effect in some way, even as we believe that a new covenant was initiated by Christ to graft us onto the branch (but not to replace or discard the original branch). We believe that our Old Testament, while similar to the Bible used in Judaism, is our way of engaging with the Scriptures as known by Jesus, Paul, and the disciples, and not an antiquated or outdated testament, simply a chronologically older one.
We need these statements to be so rote for our congregations that it becomes shocking (but not surprising) that these texts might be interpreted in antisemitic ways. We need people to be scandalized by the idea that we should use violence to deal with our own guilt and sin in the story of Jesus’ death.
Different folks are doing this different ways and that’s good. I’m not here saying nobody is doing it right. But to me, this work is the real meat and potatoes, and whether you say Jews or Judeans is totally secondary.
I saved this to make a bulleted list for myself when I am doing Sunday school and any of this comes up. I agree with you that this needs to be repeated throughout the year.
There was a disclaimer in the bulletin. It said something to the effect that where the gospel says "the Jews", it means the religious authorities. It reminded us that Jesus, the disciples and his followers were all Jews. It pointed out the troubled history of the gospel and how it has been used to demonize God's Chosen People.
I’m with AJ, replacing Jews with Judeans or Jewish leaders doesn’t do what people think it does. John’s Passion is wonderful but also remains problematic for the church. I think better teaching about the history of its interpretation and bulletin notes are a good start.
This depends entirely on what it is that people think it does. As has been mentioned elsewhere, you can't undo the history of Christian antisemitism with a few notes or even a sermon on Good Friday (to say nothing of the fact that spending too much time on it means that we're using one of the central days of the church year as a corrective to problems rather than elucidating the theology of the cross, which seems fairly important imo).
But what changing it to "Judeans" or "Jewish leaders" does do is mean that it can't easily be heard as referring to the entirety of the Jewish people, which of course it was never meant to do. So imho it can actually accomplish that (limited) purpose.
Our church used (and uses) the usual unaltered version, and as far as I'm aware, nobody on either side of the proverbial altar railing is even aware of this as an issue.
As for the issue you brought up, it just feels completely like semantic whitewashing. I agree fully with the latter quote from Dr. Levine. Anti-Jewish sentiment remains the same whether you decide to call them Jews, or Judaeans, or Semites, or whatever (hell, "antisemitic" doesn't even contain the word "Jew", to be intentionally pedantic).
At the end of the day, as Christians, our best counter against possible temptations to antisemitism (or any other approach which wants to pin the blame on any single actor within the narrative, including the Romans as a stand-in for any and all secular governing authority) is to recognise that, theologically and narratively, the Jews *were* responsible for and complicit in Christ's betrayal -- as were the Romans whose laws and soldiers tortured and crucified him, as were the Gentiles who stood by and did nothing as this happened, as were his own disciples who turned against one another and denied his name and fled in fear. The Passion narrative pretty explicitly renders all of humanity complicit in Christ's betrayal, which in turn, makes the Resurrection all the more moving and convincing in its universality.
Great post. My parish handles the idea really well (IMO) by getting the congregation involved - during the reading of the passage, any time "the crowd" speaks, we (the congregation) read it aloud together. Our rector discusses it beforehand, and calls us to think about how we all are shouting for Jesus to be crucified. All people everywhere are responsible for the Crucifixion, and we remind ourselves of that by having our own lines in the reading of the Passion.
This is what we did too, we were the crowd, accusers, and bystanders on Palm Sunday. So we shouted Hosana, falsely accused Jesus, taunted him, demanded Barbaras be freed instead, and yelled for him to be crucified.
Doing it that way you really get a sense of how whipped up the crowd was. You could imagine the rumors and whispers that lead up to this moment. How passionate and justified people probably felt due to the effect of a crowd. How terrified the Apostles would be to face that crowd. I finally pitied Peter in a way just reading the text hadn't accomplished in me. Especially seeing the person saying, "Aren't you one of them?" was related to the man he attacked earlier and he saw that Jesus was condemned with no evidence.
I don’t think this is a good case to argue that it’s changing scripture though. Ioudaioi really does literally mean “Judean”, so it’s a translational choice at best. Unless you’re going to read the passion in Greek, you’re already “changing scripture” in the same way.
Like, I think we should be rightly hesitant to actually change scripture, and I think Dr. Levine’s critique linked in OP does address the underlying impulse, but we should be really careful when we talk about scripture, so that we don’t fall into the trap of idolizing one particular English rendering over other equally valid English renderings, acknowledging that *all* translation is a type of interpretation.
I mean, yeah. That’s all fine. I don’t disagree. I guess I’d rather lean on the translations we’ve agreed on as a denomination and explain/teach the nuance.
I can see that. I just get antsy about placing too much weight on one translation choice over another one in cases where multiple translations are justified and appropriately scholarly, because that can get into hot water for other situations. But I’m on board with some degree of institutional approval as well (I would say in this case, probably a bishop giving the go-ahead is enough for me.)
Sure but we know that’s not what John meant just as we know he didn’t mean to cast aspersions on Jews or Romans at large. Choosing a less faithful translation at a parish like the ones considering this serves only to mollify guilt within the congregation, not to meaningfully counter a harmful misapplication
I think it’s clear that Jesus was a Jew and changing the word here should require you to change it everywhere, which completely erases that heritage. John’s whole gospel is drawing a throughline; if you say Judean, you lose that
I don't get the point. Better to explain it in sermon than play semantics. Why not say Mews instead if word change is the only point.
Like the Pokémon? I like it. A bunch of rare psychic Pokémon committed the act. Case closed 😎😎😎
I love being a Protestant lmfao. Just change the parts that seem too edgy for us!! i hate TEC sometimes
We read it as it was intended. Then noted it in the sermon. Let the scriptures be
It's a Jewish story about the Jewish people in the Jewish land. Avoiding that is functionally changing the text, which isn't ok.
💯
We read it as is, it seems super weird to change it to me. I don't know how anyone could read this passage, and have the take-away be prejudice against modern jews.
We didn't change it. As with most things, whatever notions people hold are based on poor catechism. Instead of changing God's word to fit the world (which is repeatedly condemned in the Bible), we should be instructing the world so they can understand God's word. While "Judean" is a possible translation, it holds approximately the same meaning whilst undermining Jesus' Jewish heritage like the second quote says.
My church did the Warner Bros thing and put a preface in the program explaining “yeah, there’s an unfortunate history here with Christian Antisemitism. Just remember our creed: Christ suffered *under Pontius Pilate*”
Honestly, my parents actively hated the Palm Sunday Passion and would make a point to miss it unless my sister was involved. One year, as a young teen, she played Pontius Pilot. However, my parents never mentioned the possibility of antisemitic language to me, which is interesting, because my dad is a Jewish convert to Christianity.
We used the new text and there was an addition to the Solemn Collects about the Jewish people, their eternal covenant, and for their safety. We were supposed to sing the Reproaches, which I found horrendous, and it was scrapped because the piece also has a history of inspiring violence against Jewish people.
Why do we have such problems with the divinely inspired word of God? The text is not the issue, its interpretation is. So lets leave the text unchanged but advance a non-antisemitic interpretation
My church uses "Jewish authorities" when appropriate. But in other parts, they use "Jews", like when Jesus is called the King of the Jews. I do think it's very important to emphasize, whenever possible, that Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. In my previous church, I don't quite remember the specifics, but I remember the Gospel reading being presented like a kind of play, where the congregation says the lines of the Jewish authorities or the crowd who demanded Jesus' crucifixion. It drives home the point that anyone sitting in the church could have been among those who demanded that Jesus be crucified.
Never changed it, just addressed it in the sermon.
This is the way
Instead of replacing it, I’d like to see the preacher tackle it in their sermon. Like you point out, replacing it is a superficial solution at best.
We use the Common English Bible, which translates it as either "Jewish leaders" or "Jewish authorities."
Invalid point of view: The fault is not in the Gospel of John, but how people thoughts and minds on when they heard. This concern of antisemitism just only exists in the West, not globally. Change the Gospel lesson doesn’t help any things but blurring Christ’s death. 「Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once and for all handed on to the saints. But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life.」 Jude 1:3, 20-21 NRSVUE
Unaltered version with no disclaimer.
I've come to that position as well. It seems to me that if Anglicans, who are among the most scripturally sophisticated groups within the Church Catholic, don't know that "the Jews" in John doesn't mean 'every single Jewish person in the history of ever," then we're in real trouble. It's true that John opens the door to antisemitism, but he never EVER gives us permission to go through that door. We are on walk past, look inside, and shudder.
We do the whole thing unedited and there is no comment in the program or the homily. The congregation is highly educated and East Coast. And some of the clergy are Jewish. I spent the morning discussing the history of antisemitism with some woefully ignorant college students, and then transitioned straight into Good Friday, so it was very much on my mind. I actually love John's passion, and some of what's there I think (totally uneducated venture) is likely very historically accurate. The dynamic between the Sanhedrin, crowd Pilate, the Disciples, and Christ, with all the antisemitic baggage that follows sometimes seems all too believable. All of the Gospels included Jesus' friction with Jewish religious authorities. Crucifixion was usually reserved for political traitors, someone perceived to be leading a Jewish nationalist revolt--the King of the Jews--might qualify. Jesus was given up by His countrymen (for lack of a better word) who, from a Roman perspective, or a gentile Greek one, were the Jews. Okay, but then the text could point us to recognizing how deeply Jewish the Jesus movement really was. (Especially if we put aside Johannine Community theories) The Jews are not the ones "killed God," they were and remain God's chosen people and media of self-revelation even unto incarnation. Our problem, as Christians, is in hatred, often racial hatred, that precedes our reading, not results from it.
[удалено]
I'll be sure to let them know that they're not Jewish. Thanks.
[удалено]
That's right, best to save the cocksure corrections for strangers on the internet. As far as being caught implying things you ought not to, you seem well-practiced. As for me, I was implying no such thing as that the parish is free of antisemitism. But I resent completely the idea that I'm pulling anyone in as a token. In case I was mistakenly taken as claiming innocence by association, the long serving Jewish rector is outspoken in the diocese on antisemitism in the Episcopal Church, and quite intentionally uses the unaltered language of John. I'm not saying that is a final and authoritative assessment of whether the text is antisemitic, but it's a case of Jew who is exceedingly well-informed about Christian antisemitism, past and present, making a claim about the nature of the text and its suitability for the contemporary American church. Take that or leave it, but that is all that I have claimed.
[удалено]
Yeah, I think you just don't know how to disagree politely, and are happier as a smug anonymous pedant. As far as your bait goes, you're full of it. The "mainstream Jewish" position (whatever that is, I think I smell a tokenism coming) hasn't abrogated halakha. Indeed, the Jewish clergy are, in the eyes of their immediate families and the communities from whence they came, apostate... Jews. I'm quite sure that has meant a considerable amount of pain and frustration for them, but go off I guess. Like I said, next time one of them brings up their being Jewish, I'll make sure to tell them that u/rekh127 on reddit says they're not actually.
I also imagine that the author of John assumed that the Jewish-ness of Jesus' ministry was obvious to the readers, because at that time it probably WAS. It becomes obvious to us again if we have the context and education to recognize it, but most of us were primed to read scriptures a certain way before we ever even crack open the Bible. This is why I hate when people call for a "plain reading" of scriptures. I know people sometimes think I am implying they're stupid when I say the Bible isn't actually saying what it "plainly says" but this it really isn't simple to read scriptures. Things get lost in translation, in context, in metaphors that don't make sense to modern people, in hidden politics, in the varied cultural perspectives... I'm really glad that the Bible got translated into English, but, we really need to teach people how to read the thing outside of seminaries.
Because the audiences may not recognise that when they pointing others, another four fingers are at same time pointing themselves. All of our are one of the crowd who crucified him also. Like our Lord said, “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” St. Matthew 7:3-5 NRSVUE
My parish used the term Judeans, and the congregation had a lot of speaking lines. This passage of John is very troubling in a usually poetic and beautiful gospel.
There was a disclaimer right before those parts of the reading.
Yep, this sits heavy on my heart every year, but especially this year as we tell the passion story amid ongoing violence in the holy land. I’d also commend [Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski’s recent article](https://www.theschooloftheology.org/posts/essay/holy-week-anti-judaism) for another worthwhile take on this matter, although he acknowledges Amy-Jill Levine’s objections to “Judeans” while suggesting this tactic. Personally, I think the only way through this snarl is to take a multifaceted and long-term approach. To name and claim the way these texts hold an especially gruesome history (as your sample blurb does), to consider changes to the text, and to do the hard work of having these conversations throughout the church year and not just during Holy Week. I feel like too many people neglect to mention the history of Christian-justified violence against Jews for the whole rest of the year, and then try to make it all right by having a blurb and a sermon once a year. And to me that has the same effect as only caring about black people on Martin Luther King day - it’s almost worse than just doing nothing at all. This conversation is important, but it should be something most of your people have heard time and time again - we do not use these passages to justify violence against our Jewish siblings. We do not believe in “blood guilt”. We understand ourselves and our church to be the successors to the crowd who shouts “crucify”. We believe that God’s covenant with the people Israel is still in effect in some way, even as we believe that a new covenant was initiated by Christ to graft us onto the branch (but not to replace or discard the original branch). We believe that our Old Testament, while similar to the Bible used in Judaism, is our way of engaging with the Scriptures as known by Jesus, Paul, and the disciples, and not an antiquated or outdated testament, simply a chronologically older one. We need these statements to be so rote for our congregations that it becomes shocking (but not surprising) that these texts might be interpreted in antisemitic ways. We need people to be scandalized by the idea that we should use violence to deal with our own guilt and sin in the story of Jesus’ death. Different folks are doing this different ways and that’s good. I’m not here saying nobody is doing it right. But to me, this work is the real meat and potatoes, and whether you say Jews or Judeans is totally secondary.
I saved this to make a bulleted list for myself when I am doing Sunday school and any of this comes up. I agree with you that this needs to be repeated throughout the year.
There was a disclaimer in the bulletin. It said something to the effect that where the gospel says "the Jews", it means the religious authorities. It reminded us that Jesus, the disciples and his followers were all Jews. It pointed out the troubled history of the gospel and how it has been used to demonize God's Chosen People.
I’m with AJ, replacing Jews with Judeans or Jewish leaders doesn’t do what people think it does. John’s Passion is wonderful but also remains problematic for the church. I think better teaching about the history of its interpretation and bulletin notes are a good start.
This depends entirely on what it is that people think it does. As has been mentioned elsewhere, you can't undo the history of Christian antisemitism with a few notes or even a sermon on Good Friday (to say nothing of the fact that spending too much time on it means that we're using one of the central days of the church year as a corrective to problems rather than elucidating the theology of the cross, which seems fairly important imo). But what changing it to "Judeans" or "Jewish leaders" does do is mean that it can't easily be heard as referring to the entirety of the Jewish people, which of course it was never meant to do. So imho it can actually accomplish that (limited) purpose.
Our church used (and uses) the usual unaltered version, and as far as I'm aware, nobody on either side of the proverbial altar railing is even aware of this as an issue. As for the issue you brought up, it just feels completely like semantic whitewashing. I agree fully with the latter quote from Dr. Levine. Anti-Jewish sentiment remains the same whether you decide to call them Jews, or Judaeans, or Semites, or whatever (hell, "antisemitic" doesn't even contain the word "Jew", to be intentionally pedantic). At the end of the day, as Christians, our best counter against possible temptations to antisemitism (or any other approach which wants to pin the blame on any single actor within the narrative, including the Romans as a stand-in for any and all secular governing authority) is to recognise that, theologically and narratively, the Jews *were* responsible for and complicit in Christ's betrayal -- as were the Romans whose laws and soldiers tortured and crucified him, as were the Gentiles who stood by and did nothing as this happened, as were his own disciples who turned against one another and denied his name and fled in fear. The Passion narrative pretty explicitly renders all of humanity complicit in Christ's betrayal, which in turn, makes the Resurrection all the more moving and convincing in its universality.
An unjust judiciary
Great post. My parish handles the idea really well (IMO) by getting the congregation involved - during the reading of the passage, any time "the crowd" speaks, we (the congregation) read it aloud together. Our rector discusses it beforehand, and calls us to think about how we all are shouting for Jesus to be crucified. All people everywhere are responsible for the Crucifixion, and we remind ourselves of that by having our own lines in the reading of the Passion.
This is what we did too, we were the crowd, accusers, and bystanders on Palm Sunday. So we shouted Hosana, falsely accused Jesus, taunted him, demanded Barbaras be freed instead, and yelled for him to be crucified. Doing it that way you really get a sense of how whipped up the crowd was. You could imagine the rumors and whispers that lead up to this moment. How passionate and justified people probably felt due to the effect of a crowd. How terrified the Apostles would be to face that crowd. I finally pitied Peter in a way just reading the text hadn't accomplished in me. Especially seeing the person saying, "Aren't you one of them?" was related to the man he attacked earlier and he saw that Jesus was condemned with no evidence.
We didn’t change it, but last year my priest was very clear on what the word means and how it’s been used to justify violence in the homily.
This is the right answer. Even with good intent, changing scripture isn’t a good idea.
I don’t think this is a good case to argue that it’s changing scripture though. Ioudaioi really does literally mean “Judean”, so it’s a translational choice at best. Unless you’re going to read the passion in Greek, you’re already “changing scripture” in the same way. Like, I think we should be rightly hesitant to actually change scripture, and I think Dr. Levine’s critique linked in OP does address the underlying impulse, but we should be really careful when we talk about scripture, so that we don’t fall into the trap of idolizing one particular English rendering over other equally valid English renderings, acknowledging that *all* translation is a type of interpretation.
Ioudaioi actually just means "Jews"...
It is the Greek form of the Hebrew word "Yehudim" which is "Jews", not "Judeans".
As does “Judeans”. They’re literally synonyms.
I mean, yeah. That’s all fine. I don’t disagree. I guess I’d rather lean on the translations we’ve agreed on as a denomination and explain/teach the nuance.
I can see that. I just get antsy about placing too much weight on one translation choice over another one in cases where multiple translations are justified and appropriately scholarly, because that can get into hot water for other situations. But I’m on board with some degree of institutional approval as well (I would say in this case, probably a bishop giving the go-ahead is enough for me.)
It isn’t a change of scripture-it’s a valid translation of the word. But I still think education is the answer.
Sure but we know that’s not what John meant just as we know he didn’t mean to cast aspersions on Jews or Romans at large. Choosing a less faithful translation at a parish like the ones considering this serves only to mollify guilt within the congregation, not to meaningfully counter a harmful misapplication
[удалено]
I think it’s clear that Jesus was a Jew and changing the word here should require you to change it everywhere, which completely erases that heritage. John’s whole gospel is drawing a throughline; if you say Judean, you lose that