John 2:23

An Exegetical Study of John 2:23: The Dative Plural of Ἱεροσόλυμα

This exegetical study of John 2:23 is based on a b-greek discussion from April 3, 2002. The initial inquiry focused on the grammatical form of the word “Jerusalem” in John 2:23, specifically its appearance as a dative plural in the Greek text. The questioner noted that while numerous other passages employ the singular form, John’s use of the plural in this instance seemed unusual. Furthermore, the questioner confirmed, after consulting various Greek texts and critical apparatuses, that this plural form is consistently attested and not a textual variant.

The main exegetical issue at hand is to understand the Fourth Evangelist’s choice to employ the dative plural form τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις in John 2:23. This is particularly intriguing when considering that other forms, such as the indeclinable Ἱερουσαλήμ, are common in the Septuagint and the New Testament, and even within John’s Gospel, the nominative plural Ἱεροσόλυμα is used in John 2:13. The investigation seeks to uncover whether this grammatical variation carries any semantic significance, reflects linguistic convention, or is primarily a matter of authorial style or even textual composition.

Ὡς δὲ ἦν ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν τῷ πάσχα, ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, θεωροῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• For John 2:23, the reading in Nestle 1904 concerning the word Ἱεροσολύμοις is identical to that found in the SBLGNT (2010). No significant textual differences are present in this specific verse for the term under consideration.

Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

In terms of textual criticism, the reading τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις in John 2:23 is robustly attested across various manuscripts and critical editions, including NA28. The textual apparatus indicates no significant variants for this particular word choice, confirming the original observation that this is not a matter of scribal disagreement but rather an authorial decision.

Lexical notes from standard Greek lexicons shed light on the usage of “Jerusalem” in the New Testament. BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) notes that Ἱεροσόλυμα (which is often plural, neuter or feminine) can refer not only to the city itself but also to its *inhabitants*. This dual reference offers a potential semantic nuance for the plural form. Furthermore, BDAG also lists the indeclinable form Ἱερουσαλήμ as another common designation for the city.

From a broader perspective, such as that provided by KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament), the Greek plural form Ἱεροσόλυμα (and its inflected forms like Ἱεροσολύμοις) is generally understood to be a transliteration of the Hebrew dual form יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (Yerushaláyim). The Hebrew dual often implies either “two Jerusalems” (perhaps referring to the upper and lower cities) or a sense of totality/completeness. As Koine Greek generally lacks a grammatical dual number, the Hebrew dual was typically rendered as a plural in Greek. This linguistic background suggests that the Greek plural is often a conventional representation of the Hebrew name rather than a deliberate semantic choice to imply multiple cities or a collective of inhabitants in every instance.

Translation Variants

The phrase under examination is ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις, literally “in the Jerusalems” or “in the things pertaining to Jerusalem.” This construction consists of the preposition ἐν (“in,” “at”) governing the dative plural definite article τοῖς and the dative plural noun Ἱεροσολύμοις. Grammatically, it functions as a locative phrase, indicating the place where the action occurs.

Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis:

• Hebraic Origin: As noted by Crick in the discussion, the simplest explanation for the plural form stems from its Hebrew origin. The Hebrew name יְרוּשָׁלַיִם is grammatically a dual. Since Greek does not possess a dual number in the New Testament period, it naturally renders the dual as a plural. This suggests that the plural form in Greek might not carry an inherent semantic plural meaning (i.e., *multiple* cities) but rather reflects the transliteration of the source language.
• Potential for Referring to Inhabitants: The BDAG entry’s allowance for Ἱεροσόλυμα to refer to the *inhabitants* of Jerusalem provides a possible rhetorical interpretation. In John 2:23, “many believed in his name” *when he was in Jerusalem*. If “Jerusalem” here implicitly refers to its people, the passage highlights the human interaction and response to Jesus’ presence during the Passover.
• Historical and Topographical Considerations: The suggestion that some cities (e.g., Sardis, Athens) were pluralized in Greek due to their historical development into distinct upper and lower towns, or multiple settlements, offers another lens. While less directly applicable to Jerusalem’s singular identity, it allows for the possibility of emphasizing Jerusalem’s complex physical structure or its various districts. However, this is largely speculative for Jerusalem in a New Testament context.
• Johannine Stylistic Variation: The most compelling argument arising from the discussion, particularly from Conrad, is that the variation in forms (e.g., Ἱεροσόλυμα in 2:13 vs. Ἱεροσολύμοις in 2:23, or the general alternation with Ἱερουσαλήμ) might be a deliberate stylistic choice characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. John is known for employing synonymous expressions without clear semantic distinction (e.g., φιλέω and ἀγαπάω, βοσκω and ποιμαίνω in John 21). The evangelist might have simply varied the grammatical form of “Jerusalem” for rhetorical elegance or to avoid monotonous repetition, rather than to convey a precise difference in meaning in each instance. This hypothesis would explain the apparent lack of consistent semantic distinction between the different forms observed by the questioner, particularly within similar contexts of the Passover.
• Source Criticism: As a tangential consideration, the idea that the Gospel of John might be a composite work of multiple authors or traditions within a “Johannine school” could offer an explanation for stylistic variations, including the usage of geographical names. However, this “higher criticism” hypothesis is beyond direct exegetical proof for a single word choice and remains a subject of ongoing scholarly debate.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis of John 2:23 reveals that the dative plural τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις is a consistent textual reading. While its origin lies in the Hebrew dual form, and there’s a lexical possibility of it referring to the inhabitants, the most convincing explanation for its variation within John’s Gospel, particularly alongside other forms, is likely a matter of Johannine stylistic preference rather than a specific, nuanced semantic intent for each occurrence. The evangelist appears to have exercised freedom in using grammatically distinct forms of “Jerusalem” without necessarily implying different referents or meanings in similar contexts.

Here are three suggested translations for ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις in John 2:23:

1. “when he was in Jerusalem”

   This is the most natural and widely accepted translation, treating the plural form as the conventional name for the city, reflecting its Hebrew origin without implying a literal plurality.

2. “when he was in the city of Jerusalem”

   This option explicitly identifies “Jerusalem” as a city, acknowledging the plural form but clarifying the singular referent. It emphasizes the geographical location.

3. “when he was among the people of Jerusalem”

   This translation leans into the potential lexical nuance of the plural referring to the inhabitants, emphasizing the human dimension and their presence during the Passover. This is a more interpretative rendering.