Recensiones y presentación de libros 151 other cases, ‘the Jews’ are the opponents who hate Jesus, persecute him and try to kill him because he interprets the pillars of their religious identity in a way that is offensive to their own self understanding”, 27); as fellow Christians (28- 30, “As with the previous interpretations, some scholars are willing to view some occurrences of ᾿Ιουδαῖοι as a reference to an inner-Christian conflict”, 28); and a religious term without empirical reference (30-35, “᾿Ιουδαῖοι does not relate to the empirical state of the Jewish people, but to its very nature”, 30f). Kierspel concludes: Some scholars mix, for example, a religious and a geographical meaning (law- abiding Jews in Judea) or define ‘the Jews’ even more narrowly as religious authori- ties around Jerusalem. But, as the specific definitions discussed earlier (authorities, Judeans), these identifications are so precise that they emerge only after a detailed comparison of very subtle nuances of the term in some of the occurrences. Besides the question whether such analytical efforts could be expected by the first readers, it is not comprehensible why the author missed to name these particular groups when the language for them is readily available. Our discussion has shown that a broader definition of ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (ethnic-religious term, religious term) fits the context better than very precise proposals (authorities, Judeans) (35f). Kierspel argues that the designation should be kept in its plain sense: “Al- though one can discern various nuances from a close reading of the text (geo- graphical, ethnic, religious), it seems that the author used the plural ᾿Ιουδαῖοι in an all-inclusive way to steer away from distinctions. Against current trends in translations, there is no probable evidence for limiting the reference to ‘religious authorities’ or to ‘Judeans’” (76). At the end of the volume Kierspel includes two charts which indicate, how different English and German transla- tions have rendered ᾿Ιουδαῖος in John’s Gospel (220f). Secondly, Kierspel briefly discusses the meaning of κόσμος in the Fourth Gospel (155-80). He begins with the lexical and conceptual meaning of κόσμος (155-60; meaning outside the NT, in the NT and in the Johannine literature, 157-60). Kierspel claims: “… in the majority of the occurrences [in John’s Gospel], κόσμος assumes the meaning ‘humanity’. This sense is paralleled in the New Testament especially by Paul and elsewhere found occasionally in Hellenistic Jewish writings such as the Septuagint” (159). Kierpsel discusses the relationship between ko,smoj and the Jews (161-81) and concludes: In the context of the Gospel, κόσμος means “humanity” with few exceptions. Scholars who regard the term “the world” as a symbol or metaphor for the Jews within the Gospel’s cosmological dualism deprive the term of its lexical and concep- tual content. We suppose that this view bases its conclusions less on comprehensive analysis of the text than on a paradigm of conflict between synagogue and church that needs revision. Neither does “the world” simply denote a principle of unbelief, since the term is mostly used for a personal agent throughout the Gospel. When understood with its usual lexical meaning, within the context of the Gospel (parallel to ᾿Ιουδαῖοι), and within the socio-political context at the end of the first century AD, the term κόσμος is part of a theodicy which aims to encourage readers who suffer under Roman persecution (213). Both lexical issues, the referent of ᾿Ιουδαῖοι and the understanding of κόσμος, are of great significance for understanding John’s Gospel and for the discussion of its alleged anti-Judaism. To address this charge, Kierspel refers