Search

Indigeneity is a relational category that is predominantly, albeit not exclusively, applicable to Indigenous peoples. As a central theoretical site of discourse in Native Studies, indigeneity tends to be characterized by politicized relationships and provides powerful rhetorical strategies and counter-narratives. Facilitating decolonization as well as illuminating the structural and systemic relationships between the indigenous and the colonial, Indigenous theory recognizes the often complex inter-relationships attending the delineation of ethnic, social, and religious identity. The historical Black Elk, for example, illustrates how Lakota and Catholic religious identities co-exist in an ongoing site of discursive tension. This article argues that the historical figure of Jesus can be re-cognized as an indigenous Judean, complicating contemporary efforts in which the quest for the historical Jesus occurs in a predominantly Christian discursive context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The word “Judaean” has now replaced “Jew” in several current historical papers. We propose to study the relevance of the reasoning that induced such a substitution, and find it lacking. The replacement derives from scholarly works written in English (S. Mason, D. Boyarin) whose inherent worth is in itself questionable. In opposition to their chosen approaches, our analysis is based on the actual sources. Whether they were written in Greek, in Hebrew, or in Aramaic, they clearly show that the meaning of the word “Jew” evolved during the Second Temple Period, and that the use of “Judaean” does not account for this semantic development.

Josephus liked to organize material in three-part structures, which imparted a sense of completion by indicating to readers that an end had been reached. This study focuses on Books 18−20 of Josephus’s Antiquities, which are organized as such a triad: Book 18 opens Roman rule in Judea and adumbrates the final clash and catastrophe, Book 19 creates some suspense by detailing two possible interruptions that could have changed the course of history but in the end came to nothing, and so Book 20 resumes the story from the end of Book 18 and takes it down to the destruction of Jerusalem. Moreover, all three books, together, form a unit in a larger triad: the story told, in the second half of Antiquities, of Judea’s move from sovereignty under the Hasmoneans (Books 12−14), to nominal sovereignty under Herod (Books 15−17), to subjugation to Rome (Books 18−20). This focus on political history is, however, contradicted in various ways, both by Josephus’s development from a Judean into a Jew of the Diaspora, who focused more on religion than on state, and by various sources used by Josephus, that pulled in other directions.

This article argues that Paul prefers to present himself as an Israelite instead of a Judean for strategic purposes (Phil. 3.5; 2 Cor. 11.13; Rom. 9.4 and 11.1). I examine how Paul simultaneously makes use of claims to ethnic authenticity and his connection to the primordial past in authorizing his gospel message. The article draws on contemporary and ancient comparanda to demonstrate the appeal and function of discourses of ethnicity and antiquity in attracting and convincing Gentile followers. I use anthropological models of ‘instrumental authenticity’ and ‘situational ethnicity’ to examine Paul’s claims, and suggest that scholars’ traditional arguments of insider (Israelite) vs outsider (Judean) language do not go far enough; insider/outsider claims are more complex than scholars have allowed, and using the aforementioned anthropological models sheds light on Paul’s construction of his own authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Matthew 23 is challenging because of the nature of the attack Jesus mounts on the scribes and the Pharisees and the way texts such as this have subsequently figured in persecution of the Jews. Responsible historical interpretation of Matthew 23 requires that we pay the closest attention to the precise nature of the intergroup conflict evident in the text in its particular setting, especially by use of social-scientific theory (here drawn from social identity theory). After denying “race” any role in designating ancient or modern groups, I focus on the conflict portrayed between the leaders and certain members of the ethnic Judean group and a Christ-movement with a different kind of identity, one that had transcended ethnic boundaries. Matthew begins with a fairly mild criticism of the scribes and Pharisees (vv 1–7). He then highlights Christ-movement identity (vv 8–12). Next he critiques the Judean outgroup in close engagement with its ethnic character, initially focusing on its leadership (vv 13–36) but then embracing a wider group (vv. 37–39). Using as an example the Vatican II statement on the Jews, I conclude that we should never eschew responsible historical interpretation of a text like Matthew 23 for political reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Josephus liked to organize material in three-part structures, which imparted a sense of completion by indicating to readers that an end had been reached. This study focuses on Books 18–20 of Josephus's Antiquities, which are organized as such a triad: Book 18 opens Roman rule in Judea and adumbrates the final clash and catastrophe, Book 19 creates some suspense by detailing two possible interruptions that could have changed the course of history but in the end came to nothing, and so Book 20 resumes the story from the end of Book 18 and takes it down to the destruction of Jerusalem. Moreover, all three books, together, form a unit in a larger triad: the story told, in the second half of Antiquities, of Judea's move from sovereignty under the Hasmoneans (Books 12–14), to nominal sovereignty under Herod (Books 15–17), to subjugation to Rome (Books 18–20). This focus on political history is, however, contradicted in various ways, both by Josephus's development from a Judean into a Jew of the Diaspora, who focused more on religion than on state, and by various sources used by Josephus, that pulled in other directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]