Mason has some good points to make, but overall his suggestions for changing terminology are misleading. I heartily concur with his goal of seeking to understand the ancients as they understood themselves (458-59) (I have the same goal in my own work), but he does not achieve that. I see four major problems in his article.

First, his point that ancient Jews were an ethnic group or “ethnos” is correct, but his overempahsis on this distorts history. He is reinforcing the theological prejudice that Jews were a narrow ethnic group, while Christians had a universal vision. Jews also had a universal sense of things and overstressing ethnicity obscures that. Moreover, by “ethnos”, Mason means a group with a conglomeration of traditions, customs, stories, mores, etc. (457, 484). Fine, but “Jew”, “Jewish”, and “Jewishness” are perfectly good words for that. There is no reason to abandon these words for “Judaeans”. He may have a point about “Judaism”, but he is wrong when he says the category of “Jewishness” did not exist back then (503). He only proves they did not use this word, but the concept certainly did exist, even if they used other words.

Second, he puts way too much emphasis on connecting Judaeans with memories of their ancestral land as a source of identity (486, 489, 511). He makes almost no mention of Torah and oral Torah which was even more central to their identity. He fails to capture their vitality, their creativity, their youthfulness, their constant wrestling with Torah. He mentions Torah once in a quotation of another writer (465). He mentions Mishnah and Tosefta once (474), but he never connects this to the wider phenomenon of oral Torah and makes a negative reference to rabbinic literature (502). “Judaean” misses some of the most creative things about ancient Jews.

Third, he never brings up the Galileans. Would he call them Judaeans too? Or they will be separated and called Galileans? If so, that is a historical falsehood. Galilean Jews and Judaean Jews had more in common than they had differences. Calling them both Jews is historically appropriate, even if they would have used some different words. And Mason is opening the way for those who love to shout, “You see! Jesus was not Jewish! He was not Judaean! He was Galilean which is completely different.” More nonsense.

Fourth, Mason claims that he wants to use words the people themselves would have used. But he has no trouble calling Paul a Christian (469, 495), even though Paul would never have used this word. I think (and I am not alone in this) that Paul never gave up his Jewish identity. And Paul is not converting gentiles to Christianity (a term Paul did not know) but to his brand of Jewishness. You could call him a Messianic Jew. Or you could use the expression from Acts and call him a follower of the Way, which is “halachah” in Hebrew. But Mason wants to disconnect Paul from what he calls Judaean views (495, n. 83). That is very wrong. But whatever your view on this, “Christian” does not fit in with Mason’s stated goal of using their own words. It is striking that he is so quick to call Paul a Christian and yet is obsessed with removing “Jew”. “Jewish”, and “Jewishness” from ancient history. How bizarre.

I commend Mason for his awareness that ancient Christian authors denigrated Jews and Jewish culture (471-76, 499-500, 504), but he is subtly promoting, whether intentionally or unintentionally, a similar program. Christian theology is being used to rewriite Jewish history. Nothing has changed in scholarship. Everyone is still missing the vitality and creativity of Pharisaic/rabbinic culture (and missing Jesus’ participation in this youthful, vibrant culture), the universality of the Jewish vision, the continuity of this culture over the centuries, the Torah and oral Torah as close to the center of their identity, and much more. “Judaean” erases all this. “Jewish” captures the ethnic nature of ancient Judaism and it also serves to resist Christian imperialism and theology. I strongly object to reading Jewish history through a Christian lens and this de-Judaizing of Jewish history. It is not seemly and it falsifies history.

Leon Zitzer

I am going to read Mason’s article as soon as I can get my hands on it. But I think it is disingenuous of scholars, especially New Testament scholars, to claim that when they are talking about 1st century Jewish culture, they do not have Jesus at least in the back of their minds. The same thing happens with Josephus. Scholars claim to be studying Josephus objectively, when it is very clear that so many of them have an agenda to make sure that Josephus never upsets the myth that some Jewish leaders were responsible for Jesus’ death.

So I am a little suspicious when someone claims to be making discoveries about 1st century Jewish culture which are completely independent of concerns about the historical Jesus. I am also suspicious when 1st century Pharisaic/rabbinic culture is so undervalued in all these studies.

Having said that, I agree that you are right to rebuke me for possibly jumping to conclusions about an article I have not studied yet. I apologize for that. But the entire history of New Testament scholarship right up to the present does not fill one with confidence about the ability of scholars to be objective in this area. There is still lacking a full discussion of how prejudice has deeply affected this field from the beginning; absolutely nothing here that is even close to what is being done in anthropology.

Leon Zitzer

It seems that you have not actually read Steve Mason’s article, which has nothing to do with Jesus. As a result, much of what you say is addressing something that neither I nor Steve Mason are dealing with. I would suggest reading the article rather than dismissing it.

Phil

“Jew” and “Jewish” are the proper terms for that people and culture in history which never stopped arguing with itself, with God, and with the book that recorded its birth in history. The proper goal of historical studies is to understand Jesus in his Pharisaic/rabbinic context. This field was born in the 19th century to prevent this from being carried out. The prevention is still going on.

There are so many parallels between Jesus and rabbinic Judaism, and they are all so revealing. But scholars are bent on suppressing this. In anthropology, there is a raging debate about how prejudices affect their field. That is because anthropolgy strives to be a science. No such debate occurs in historical Jesus studies because it is not even trying to be a science. The goal is just to play terminology games to cover up understanding Jesus’ Jewishness.

A detailed examination of scholarship supports this conclusion.

Leon Zitzer

Jesus was not on my mind. Nor was it at all the topic of Steve Mason’s article. Mason’s article is on what concepts are most useful, scientifically or historically speaking, in studying ethnic groups like the Judeans in the ancient period.

To argue that we are better off speaking of “Judeans” and “Judean culture” rather than some overall religious system “Judaism” (for the ancient period) is quite different from saying that Jesus — if we were talking about him — was not fully a part of that Judean culture (usually anti-Semitic approaches of the past try to remove Jesus from his Jewish/Judean context). In other words, someone such as myself would clearly affirm that Jesus was very much a part of Judean culture of the Galilean type.

Nor do I think that Elliott is saying that Jesus is somehow unique and apart from his cultural context, although I have only skimmed that article so far.

Hope this clarifies how this current debate has very little to do with anti-Semitism of a particular period and of a particular group of scholars of the past. Instead, it’s a question of method in studying ethnic groups of various kinds (not just Judean) in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Phil H.

Following up on my preceding post: Elliott also argues for the “Judean” rather than “Jew”. But what he also does is argue for the emic term “Israelite.”

Anyway, have a read when you have the chance.

Bob.

Yes, Elliott and Mason are doing different things, but they do overlap. I’ll cut and paste the abstract to Elliott’s essay:

=====
Distinguishing between insider and outsider groups and their differing nomenclatures is essential for accurate interpretation and translation. Jesus and his earliest followers, evidence demonstrates, were called ‘Israelites’, ‘Galileans’, or ‘Nazoreans’ by their fellow Israelites. ‘Israel’, ‘Israelites’ were the preferred terms of self-designation among members of the house of Israel when addressing other members—not 0Ioudai~oj ,‘Jew’ or ‘Judaism.’ Modern interpreters and translators of the Bible, it is argued, should respect and follow this insider preference. 0Ioudai~oj, an outsider coinage, is best rendered ‘Judaean,’ not ‘Jew’, to reflect the explicit or implied connection with Judaea. It was employed by Israelites when addressing outsiders as an accommodation to outsider usage. The concepts ‘Jew,’ ‘Jewish,’ and ‘Christian’ as understood today are shaped more by fourth century rather than first century C. E. realities and hence should be avoided as anachronistic designations for first century persons or groups. Use of ‘Christian’ is best restricted to its three NT appearances. The use of appropriate nomenclature is crucial for minimizing historical and social inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

=====

Bob.

Bob: I am familiar with the article by Elliott, which I have yet to study in detail. But my impressions are that, although there is overlap between Elliott’s point and Mason’s, the two are dealing with quite different things and come to different conclusions (despite some similarities). What I do know is that I agree with Mason’s article broadly speaking, but I’ll have to see about Elliott’s article.

When I think of someone I most often trust on social scientific approaches to early Christianity, I think of Elliott.

When I think of someone I most often trust on Judean culture of the Roman period, I think of Mason.

Loren: No problem.

Phil H.

You may also want to see the closely related essay we just published in the _Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus_ by John H. Elliott, “Jesus the Israelite was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature,” JSHJ 5.2 (July 2007): 119-54.

Bob.