Mar 31
"Late Judaism" — Ban this phrase NOW!
I don’t mean to pick on him particularly, but I feel obliged to haul Claude Mariottini over these metacatholic coals, pour encourager les autres. In an otherwise good post (read it), he says:
In late Judaism, the Messiah was considered to be God’s agent who would bring restoration to Israel. The New Testament used the title and applied it to Christ to designate him as the savior of the world. (my emphasis)
But if Judaism was late 2,000 years ago, what on earth is it now?
I am aware that this used to be a standard and commonplace phrase of a Christian scholarship that operated in complete isolation from Jewish scholarship, with a completely supercessionist theology, and quite commonly with an anti-Semitic ideology. But I had thought the phrase had been pretty much stamped out nowadays. I will put its use on this occasion down to carelessness caused by reading too many worthy but now ancient tomes of Christian scholarship on the Second Temple period.
I really think we ought to stop using the phrase “late Judaism” to describe something that has continued to flourish for 2,000 years after the period being described as “late”. It’s not even middle-aged at that point. Arguably, in any sense that we know it today, it’s not Judaism either, but a common ancestor of Christianity and Judaism.
Let’s be clear. “Late Judaism” is a theological construct, not a descriptive one, when it is applied to the late Second Temple period, and in many people’s ears (including mine) it carries anti-semitic baggage. (I am not accusing Claude of that, but only of using a phrase carelessly. I am quite sure Claude didn’t mean to be insulting to contemporary Judaism at all.) Christians need to stop saying “late Judaism” and say something else.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
How about ‘early Judaism’???
March 31st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I think that’s probably accurate historically, but I’d be fascinated to see what Jewish people thought of the idea.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Shaye Cohen has a good discussion of this in the second edition of From the Maccabees to the Mishnah pp 6-8. He points out that the alternative “early Judaism” does lack the anti-Jewish overtones, but is chronically vague.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
How about, oh, say, “First Century Judaism”? That seems to make the most sense to me.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“First Century” for whom? Surely not for Judaism!
April 1st, 2008 at 4:12 am
Doug,
First of all, let me affirm that there was no anti-Semitic sentiment behind my use of the expression “late Judaism.” This expression has been used by many scholars, past and present, without invoking the anti-Semitic rhetoric. A quick search on Google will reveal that the expression appears about 746,000 times on web pages indexed by Google.
In addition, a search of Google Scholars will show that many renowned scholars still use the expression “late Judaism” in their academic work. A few scholars have been using the expression “Late Antique Judaism,” which to me does not reflect an improvement on “late Judaism.”
My use of “late Judaism” reflects the use found in many scholarly works. It does not presuppose a supercessionist theology nor an anti-Semitic sentiment. Maybe I have missed reading in the technical literature a call to abandon the use of the expression “late Judaism.” As for me, I have no problem using an expression such as Second Temple Judaism or First Century Judaism to express Judaism at the time of Christ.
Claude Mariottini
April 1st, 2008 at 8:58 am
I wasn’t singling you out, Claude, from among those who continue to use this expression, honest. It’s just that you’re the first blogging scholar to use it that I’ve noticed. I don’t read that many Hebrew Bible focussed blogs, but I would say that the term has both been criticized strongly by Ed Sanders, and is certainly used far less among NT scholars than it used to be. I happen to agree strongly with Sanders, and I’m afraid simply used your post as an occasion to sound off about this. Sorry if you felt picked on.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Doug,
I was not offended by your comments. I was just trying to emphasize in my response that my use of the term did not contain any anti-Semitic connotation. I agree with you that anti-Semitic remarks have no place in academic circles. I appreciate your remarks and your call to end the use of the expression.
Your comments also help me to be more sensitive when I write. We must realize that what we write may be viewed differently by other people.
Again, thank you for your comments.
Claude Mariottini
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Justin-
“First century” according to the way we in the modern Western world count years. It wasn’t the “first century” for the Greeks, Romans, or anybody else (except the Christians) at the time, but most modern historians are usually content to use the terminology, as it is more convenient than saying “approximately one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five years before the moment at which I am writing.”
-Shaylin
April 17th, 2008 at 3:36 am
I agree with Doug and have made the same points in my own work. I believe the term “late Judaism” was originally coined by 19th century German scholars, as “Spätjudentum”. All the German scholars used it, including Albert Schweitzer. It went along with the belief that, after the 1st century, Judaism was a dead religion or frozen in time. In the 19th century many scholars said Jews were already dead, walking corpses, they just didn’t know it yet. A German scholar, Charlotte Klein, was very critical of the term in her book “Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology” (1978 in English; 1975 in Germany). Robert Wilken lamented in 1983 that “late Judaism” was still being used. No Jewish scholar would ever use it. It comes strictly from Christian imperialism towards Judaism. I was very sad to come upon this post and discover that it has still not gone away. What a shame.
Leon Zitzer