A socio-cultural model of Judean ethnicity: A proposal

Abstract

This article focuses on the matter of Judean (“Jewish”) ethnic identity during the first century CE. New Testament scholarship lacks an overall interpretive framework by which Judean identity can be understood. Appreciation of what informed the entire process of Judean ethnic identity formation in the first century, or at any period for that matter, is lacking. This lack of interpretive framework is rather acute in scholarship on the historical Jesus, where the issue of Judeanness (“Jewishness”) is most strongly debated. A Socio-Cultural Model of Judean Ethnicity is developed, as being a synthesis of (1) Sanders’ notion of covenantal nomism, but reappropriated to serve as an ethnic descriptor, (2) Berger and Luckmann’s theories on the sociology of knowledge, (3) Dunn’s “four pillars of Second Temple ‘Judaism’” and his “new perspec-tive” on Paul, (4) cultural anthropology in the form of modern ethnicity theory, and lastly, (5) Duling’s Socio-Cultural Model of Ethnicity. The proposed model is termed covenantal nomism. It is a pictorial representation of the Judean “symbolic universe” which, as an ethnic identity, is proposed to be essentially primordialist

Religion and covenantal praxis in first century Judeanism

“…Here idolatry, politics and matters of identity intermingled. 8 The "Judean symbolic universe" as a concept is explained in further detail elsewhere (cf Cromhout & Van Aarde 2006;Cromhout 2007). It refers to the Judean social construction of reality, their "world" so to speak, where all Judean institutions are integrated in an allembracing frame of reference (i. e. a divinely revealed Law).…”

“…Socialization was broadly experienced on two levels. First, it is grounded in the habitus, the shared habitual dispositions of Judean social agents, which shape and are shaped by objective common cultural practices (Cromhout & Van Aarde 2006;cf Jones 1997:87-105;Bourdieu 1977:72). Here we enter the realm of affect, the powerful influence of familiarity and customariness in social life, and the strong attachments that result from ingrained habits of thought and social practice (Fenton 2003:89-90).…”

“…Very important, but not treated here, was the Judean attachment to the ancestral land. Other cultural features also not discussed here are matters such as kinship, language, and aspects of the Judean "sacred canopy", such as shared "historical" memories, myths of common ancestry, YHWH, divine election, covenant, and the Torah (seeCromhout & Van Aarde 2006).…”

What kind of “Judean” was Jesus?

“…Judean customs inevitably were a demonstration that their practitioners were Judean, or members of God's covenant people (Cromhout & Van Aarde 2006). 7 The Maccabean and other revolts can also be described as a form of ethnicism, "a collective movement, whose activities and efforts are aimed at resisting perceived threats from outside and corrosion within, at renewing a community's forms and traditions, and at reintegrating a community's members and strata which have become dangerously divided by conflicting pressures … [E]thnicism has manifested three broad aims in antiquity … territorial restoration, genealogical restoration and cultural renewal" (Smith 1986:50-51).…”

J D Crossan's Construct of Jesus' “Jewishness”: A Critical Assessment

“…The notions of the sacred and the profane, of the pure/clean and impure/unclean, were important elements of the "Jewish" symbolic universe (cf Berger & Luckmann 1967;Berger 1973;Cromhout & Van Aarde 2006). It was especially the role of the priests to distinguish (badal) between the two (Lv 10:10) and which had to be taught to the people (Ezk 44:23).…”