Rethinking JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity: An Argument for DiÃÂmantling a DubiouÃÂ Category
It iÃÂ not juÃÂt to be clever that I have appropriated Michael WilliamÃÂ'ÃÂ title;1 I want to ÃÂuggeÃÂt that the argument for diÃÂmantling the one (GnoÃÂticiÃÂm) iÃÂ ÃÂtartlingly ÃÂimilar to the argument for diÃÂmantling the other (JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity). Adding Karen King'ÃÂ important inÃÂightÃÂ into the comparative mix,2 I would ÃÂay that the term "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity" alwayÃÂ functionÃÂ aÃÂ a term of art in a moderniÃÂt hereÃÂiology: It iÃÂ a marker of the too JewiÃÂh ÃÂide of the GoldilockÃÂ fairytale that iÃÂ "ordinary" ChriÃÂtianity, to cite for the moment OÃÂkar ÃÂ karÃÂaune'ÃÂ hereÃÂiological terminology.3 I propoÃÂe that any definition of "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity" implieÃÂ an entire theory of the development of early ChriÃÂtianity and JudaiÃÂm,4 and I will [End Page 7] ÃÂketch out ÃÂuch a theory that, if accepted, virtually precludeÃÂ, in my opinion, any continued ÃÂcholarly uÃÂefulneÃÂÃÂ for the term.
Two recent eÃÂÃÂayÃÂ introducing two volumeÃÂ of new thinking on the topic of ÃÂogennante JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity exemplify for me the pitfallÃÂ of uÃÂing thiÃÂ terminology itÃÂelf, even in the handÃÂ of very critical writerÃÂ indeed. My caÃÂe for abandoning thiÃÂ term iÃÂ an argument in three movementÃÂ. In the firÃÂt movement, I will preÃÂent evidence and diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂ evidence already given for the claim that there iÃÂ never in premodern timeÃÂ a term that non-ChriÃÂtian JewÃÂ uÃÂe to refer to their "religion," that IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ iÃÂ, indeed, not a religion (thiÃÂ term to be defined), and that conÃÂequently it cannot be hyphenated in any meaningful way. In the ÃÂecond movement, I will try to ÃÂhow that the ÃÂelf-underÃÂtanding of ChriÃÂtianÃÂ of ChriÃÂtianity aÃÂ a religion waÃÂ ÃÂlow developing aÃÂ well5 and that a term ÃÂuch aÃÂ "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtian" (or rather itÃÂ ancient equivalentÃÂ, Nazorean, Ebionite) waÃÂ part and parcel of that development itÃÂelf and thuÃÂ eo ipÃÂo, and not merely factitiouÃÂly, a hereÃÂiological term of art. In the third movement, I will try to ÃÂhow that even the moÃÂt critical, modern, and beÃÂt-willed uÃÂageÃÂ of the term in ÃÂcholarÃÂhip devolve willy-nilly to hereÃÂiology. If my argumentÃÂ be accepted, there ÃÂhould be aÃÂ little juÃÂtification for continued uÃÂe of the term "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity" aÃÂ a ÃÂcholarly deÃÂignation aÃÂ there iÃÂ for the term "hereÃÂy" itÃÂelf (except aÃÂ the very object of hereÃÂiological diÃÂcourÃÂe).
1. There iÃÂ No JudaiÃÂm
It ÃÂeemÃÂ highly ÃÂignificant that there iÃÂ no word in premodern JewiÃÂh parlance that meanÃÂ "JudaiÃÂm." When the term IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ appearÃÂ in non-ChriÃÂtian JewiÃÂh writing-to my knowledge only in 2 MaccabeeÃÂ-it doeÃÂn't mean JudaiÃÂm the religion but the entire complex of loyaltieÃÂ and practiceÃÂ that mark off the people of IÃÂrael; after that, iÃÂ uÃÂed aÃÂ the name of the JewiÃÂh religion only by writerÃÂ who do not identify themÃÂelveÃÂ with and by that name at all, until, it would ÃÂeem, well into the nineteenth century.6 It might ÃÂeem, then, that JudaiÃÂm haÃÂ not, until ÃÂome time in modernity, exiÃÂted at all, that whatever modernÃÂ might be tempted to abÃÂtract out, to diÃÂembed from the culture of JewÃÂ and call [End Page 8] their religion, waÃÂ not ÃÂo diÃÂembedded nor aÃÂcribed particular ÃÂtatuÃÂ by JewÃÂ until very recently.
In a recent article, ÃÂ teve MaÃÂon haÃÂ deciÃÂively demonÃÂtrated that which other ÃÂcholarÃÂ (including the writer of theÃÂe lineÃÂ) have been bruiting about in the laÃÂt few yearÃÂ, namely, that there iÃÂ no "native" term that meanÃÂ "JudaiÃÂm" in any language uÃÂed by JewÃÂ of themÃÂelveÃÂ until modernity,7 and, moreover that the term Ioudaioi iÃÂ almoÃÂt never, if ever, uÃÂed by people to refer to themÃÂelveÃÂ aÃÂ "JewÃÂ."8 In a faÃÂcinating and [End Page 9] compelling demonÃÂtration, MaÃÂon ÃÂhowÃÂ that the term IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ/IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ only comeÃÂ to mean "JudaiÃÂm" in the mid-third century (with the Latin actually preceding the Greek), when the practiceÃÂ and beliefÃÂ of the JewÃÂ are ÃÂeparated polemically by Tertullian from their landedneÃÂÃÂ, their hiÃÂtory, "all that had made it compelling to JudaizerÃÂ," and IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ meanÃÂ now "an oÃÂÃÂified ÃÂyÃÂtem flaÃÂh-frozen with the arrival of JeÃÂuÃÂ."9 MaÃÂon ÃÂhowÃÂ, moreover, that Tertullian'ÃÂ uÃÂage of IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ, in contraÃÂt with ChriÃÂtianiÃÂmuÃÂ, "ÃÂtripÃÂ away all that waÃÂ different in Judaean culture-itÃÂ poÃÂition among ancient peopleÃÂ, anceÃÂtral traditionÃÂ, lawÃÂ and cuÃÂtomÃÂ, conÃÂtitution, ariÃÂtocracy, prieÃÂthood, philoÃÂophical ÃÂchoolÃÂ-abÃÂtracting only an impoveriÃÂhed belief ÃÂyÃÂtem"10-an impoveriÃÂhment that perÃÂiÃÂtÃÂ, I would ÃÂuggeÃÂt, up through today'ÃÂ referenceÃÂ to JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ a faith! ThiÃÂ iÃÂ not, of courÃÂe, a hiÃÂtorically accurate repreÃÂentation of the ÃÂtate of the JewiÃÂh people at the time (after all a certain heyday of PaleÃÂtinian JewiÃÂh life, the time of the MiÃÂhnah), aÃÂ MaÃÂon ÃÂhowÃÂ eloquently. HiÃÂ explanation for Tertullian'ÃÂ new uÃÂage iÃÂ equally convincing: "By about 200 C.E. the Church waÃÂ making headway aÃÂ a popular movement, [End Page 10] or a conÃÂtellation of looÃÂely related movementÃÂ. In that atmoÃÂphere, in which internal and external ÃÂelf-definition remained a paramount concern, Tertullian and otherÃÂ felt ÃÂtrong enough to jettiÃÂon earlier attemptÃÂ at accommodating their faith to exiÃÂting categorieÃÂ, eÃÂpecially effortÃÂ to portray themÃÂelveÃÂ aÃÂ JudaeanÃÂ, and to ÃÂee commitment to ChriÃÂt aÃÂ ÃÂui generiÃÂ. Rather than admitting the definitive ÃÂtatuÃÂ of the eÃÂtabliÃÂhed formÃÂ and reÃÂponding defenÃÂively, they began to project the hybrid form of ChriÃÂtaniÃÂmuÃÂ on the other groupÃÂ to facilitate polemical contraÃÂt (ÃÂÃÂÃÂ½ÃÂºÃÂÃÂ¹ÃÂÃÂ¹ÃÂ). The moÃÂt important group for ChriÃÂtian ÃÂelf-definition had alwayÃÂ been the Ioudaioi, and ÃÂo they were the groupÃÂ moÃÂt conÃÂpicuouÃÂly reduced to ÃÂuch treatment, which generated a ÃÂtatic and ÃÂyÃÂtemic abÃÂtraction called ÃÂÃÂ¿ÃÂ ÃÂ´ÃÂ±ÃÂÃÂÃÂ¼ÃÂÃÂ/IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ."11 The clear and critical concluÃÂion to be drawn from thiÃÂ argument iÃÂ conÃÂonant with my theÃÂiÃÂ in Border LineÃÂ that "JudaiÃÂm" aÃÂ the name of a "religion" iÃÂ a product of ChriÃÂtianity in itÃÂ attemptÃÂ to eÃÂtabliÃÂh a ÃÂeparate identity from ÃÂomething elÃÂe which they call "JudaiÃÂm," a project that beginÃÂ no earlier than the mid-ÃÂecond century and only in certain quarterÃÂ (notably AÃÂia Minor), gatherÃÂ ÃÂtrength in the third century, and comeÃÂ to fruition in the proceÃÂÃÂeÃÂ around before and following the Council of Nicaea.12 It ÃÂhould be remembered, however, that thiÃÂ iÃÂ a ChriÃÂtian meaning of IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ/IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ, not a "JewiÃÂh" one, nor even a non-JewiÃÂh one, aÃÂ MaÃÂon ÃÂhowÃÂ, adducing the uÃÂage of Ioudaioi/Iudaei in parallel with other ethonymÃÂ in ancient writerÃÂ, "pagan" and JewiÃÂh, while ChriÃÂtianiÃÂmoÃÂ/muÃÂ iÃÂ paralleled with the nameÃÂ for myÃÂtery cultÃÂ.13 Where I diÃÂagree with MaÃÂon iÃÂ in hiÃÂ acceptance of Wilfred Cantwell ÃÂ mith'ÃÂ concluÃÂion that "early weÃÂtern civilization waÃÂ on the verge, at the time of LactantiuÃÂ [d. ca. 325 C.E.], of taking a deciÃÂive ÃÂtep in the formulation of an elaborate, comprehenÃÂive, philoÃÂophic concept of religio. However, it did not take it. The matter waÃÂ virtually dropped, to lie dormant for a thouÃÂand yearÃÂ,"14 to which MaÃÂon commentÃÂ deciÃÂively: "It iÃÂ only weÃÂtern modernity that knowÃÂ thiÃÂ category [End Page 11] of religion."15 In the next ÃÂection of my argument that "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity" and itÃÂ ancient terminological counterpartÃÂ are ÃÂimply and only hereÃÂiological termÃÂ of art, I will preÃÂent evidence that ÃÂ mith (and thuÃÂ MaÃÂon) iÃÂ wrong on preciÃÂely thiÃÂ point, for not only did a robuÃÂt notion of "religion" exiÃÂt in ChriÃÂtian writerÃÂ, it waÃÂ neceÃÂÃÂary for the exiÃÂtence of a tranÃÂethnic ChriÃÂtendom. Moreover, the conÃÂtruction of ancient verÃÂionÃÂ of "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity" waÃÂ an important part of the production of that notion.
2. "ReligionÃÂ" were Invented in the Fourth Century
MaÃÂon himÃÂelf haÃÂ given uÃÂ the material for a hypotheÃÂiÃÂ. FirÃÂt of all, to ÃÂum up, he haÃÂ ÃÂhown how by the third century ChriÃÂtian writerÃÂ are uÃÂing both IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ/IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianiÃÂmoÃÂ/uÃÂ to refer to belief ÃÂyÃÂtemÃÂ abÃÂtractable from cultural ÃÂyÃÂtemÃÂ aÃÂ a whole. ÃÂ econd, he haÃÂ argued that the later meaningÃÂ of "religion"-the allegedly modern oneÃÂ-are prepared for in antiquity by the concept of a "philoÃÂophy" aÃÂ a ÃÂyÃÂtem of beliefÃÂ and practiceÃÂ "voluntarily" adopted and maintained.16 TheÃÂe two elementÃÂ, I ÃÂtrongly ÃÂuggeÃÂt, led to a late ancient development of ÃÂomething quite cloÃÂe to our modern notion of religion.
At the end of the fourth century and in the firÃÂt quarter of the fifth century, we can find ÃÂeveral textÃÂ atteÃÂting how ChriÃÂtianity'ÃÂ new notion of ÃÂelf-definition via "religiouÃÂ" alliance waÃÂ gradually replacing ÃÂelf-definition via kinÃÂhip, language, and land.17 TheÃÂe textÃÂ, belonging to very different genreÃÂ, indeed to entirely different ÃÂphereÃÂ of diÃÂcourÃÂe-hereÃÂiology, hiÃÂtoriography, and law-can nevertheleÃÂÃÂ be read aÃÂ ÃÂymptomÃÂ of an epiÃÂtemic ÃÂhift of great importance. AÃÂ Andrew JacobÃÂ deÃÂcribeÃÂ the diÃÂcourÃÂe of the late fourth and early fifth centurieÃÂ, "Certainly thiÃÂ univerÃÂe of diÃÂcourÃÂeÃÂ engendered different meanÃÂ of eÃÂtabliÃÂhing normativity: the diÃÂciplinary practiceÃÂ of Roman law, for inÃÂtance, operated in a manner quite diÃÂtinct from the intellectual inculcation of hiÃÂtoriography or the ritualized enactment of orthodoxy. NevertheleÃÂÃÂ, [End Page 12] the common goal of thiÃÂ diÃÂcurÃÂive univerÃÂe waÃÂ the reorganization of ÃÂignificant aÃÂpectÃÂ of life under a ÃÂingle, totalized, imperial ChriÃÂtian rubric."18
ThiÃÂ conÃÂtruction of "ChriÃÂtianneÃÂÃÂ" primarily involved the invention of ChriÃÂtianity aÃÂ a religion, diÃÂembedded, in ÃÂ eth ÃÂ chwartz'ÃÂ wordÃÂ, from other cultural practiceÃÂ and identifying markerÃÂ.19 ÃÂ uÃÂanna Elm ÃÂhowÃÂ that late fourth-century ChriÃÂtianÃÂ were already committed to the idea of religionÃÂ and even underÃÂtood quite well the difference between religiouÃÂ definition and other modeÃÂ of identity formation.20 ÃÂ he findÃÂ evidence for thiÃÂ claim aÃÂ early aÃÂ Julian, "the ApoÃÂtate" who formed hiÃÂ religion, "HelleniÃÂm," in the 360ÃÂ on the model of ChriÃÂtianity, but aÃÂ we will ÃÂee, there iÃÂ evidence that goeÃÂ back at leaÃÂt aÃÂ far aÃÂ EuÃÂebiuÃÂ in the firÃÂt half of the century.21 Julian inÃÂiÃÂtÃÂ that only one who believeÃÂ in "HelleniÃÂm" can underÃÂtand it and teach it, aÃÂ juÃÂtification for hiÃÂ denial of the right to teach philoÃÂophy to ChriÃÂtian teacherÃÂ.22 VaÃÂiliki LimberiÃÂ emphaÃÂizeÃÂ how, for all Julian'ÃÂ hatred of ChriÃÂtianity, hiÃÂ religioÃÂity haÃÂ been deeply ÃÂtructured by the model of ChriÃÂtianity.23 AÃÂ LimberiÃÂ putÃÂ it: "ChriÃÂtianÃÂ had never been barred from letterÃÂ. Not only waÃÂ thiÃÂ an effective political tool to ÃÂtymie ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, it had the remarkable effect of inventing a [End Page 13] new religion and religiouÃÂ identity for people in the Roman empire."24 I would ÃÂlightly modify LimberiÃÂ'ÃÂ formulation by noting that Julian did not ÃÂo much invent a new religion aÃÂ participate in the invention of a new notion of religion aÃÂ a category and aÃÂ a regime of power/knowledge. ÃÂ he writeÃÂ: "In particular, Julian echoeÃÂ ChriÃÂtianity'ÃÂ moduÃÂ operandi by turning pagan practiceÃÂ into a formal inÃÂtitution that one muÃÂt join."25 MaÃÂon haÃÂ written of the HaÃÂmonean period that "the analogue Hellene doeÃÂ not undergo a change of tranÃÂlation, but ÃÂtill meanÃÂ 'Greek' with all of itÃÂ complicated meaningÃÂ in play . . . the analogy breakÃÂ down if "Hellene' doeÃÂ not become a religiouÃÂ term aÃÂ 26 INCLUDEPICTURE "http://muse.jhu.edu.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/journals/jewish_quarterly_review/v099/inline-graphic/99.1.boyarin_01i.gif" \* MERGEFORMATINET Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã¯Â¿Â½iÃÂ ÃÂaid to do. Why change the tranÃÂlation of IoudaioÃÂ alone?" True enough. But clearly for Julian, a half a millenium later in the fourth century (and we will ÃÂee for ÃÂome ChriÃÂtian writerÃÂ aÃÂ well at that time), "HelleniÃÂm" no longer haÃÂ anything to do with being Greek per ÃÂe but iÃÂ indeed the name for a "religion"!27 By that time, the correct tranÃÂlation for HelleniÃÂm in thoÃÂe writerÃÂ iÃÂ ÃÂomething like "paganiÃÂm," while again in thoÃÂe ChriÃÂtian writerÃÂ, the correct tranÃÂlation of IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ and Ioudaioi and their Latin equivalentÃÂ would be "JudaiÃÂm" and "JewÃÂ." The great fourth-century Cappadocian theologian Gregory Nazianzen conteÃÂted Julian'ÃÂ edict preciÃÂely on theÃÂe termÃÂ, denying that "HelleniÃÂm" waÃÂ a religion:
But I am obliged to ÃÂpeak again about the word . . . HelleniÃÂm to what doeÃÂ the word apply, what doeÃÂ one mean by it? . . . Do you want to pretend that HelleniÃÂm meanÃÂ a religion, or, and the evidence ÃÂeemÃÂ to point that way, doeÃÂ it mean a people, and the language invented by thiÃÂ nation . . . If HelleniÃÂm iÃÂ a religion, ÃÂhow uÃÂ from which place and what prieÃÂtÃÂ it haÃÂ received itÃÂ ruleÃÂ . . . BecauÃÂe the fact that the ÃÂame people uÃÂe the Greek language who alÃÂo profeÃÂÃÂ Greek religion doeÃÂ not mean that the wordÃÂ belong therefore to the religion, and that we therefore are naturally excluded from uÃÂing them. ThiÃÂ iÃÂ not a logical concluÃÂion, and doeÃÂ not agree with your own logicianÃÂ. ÃÂ imply [End Page 14] becauÃÂe two realitieÃÂ encounter each other doeÃÂ not mean that they are confluent, i.e. identical.28
Nazianzen denied the legitimacy of HelleniÃÂm aÃÂ a religion but he clearly knew what a religion iÃÂ, and ChriÃÂtianity iÃÂ not the only member of the genuÃÂ. He haÃÂ ÃÂome ÃÂort of definition of the object "religion" in mind here, diÃÂtinct from and in binary ÃÂemiotic oppoÃÂition to ethnoÃÂ, which belieÃÂ the commonplace that ÃÂuch definitionÃÂ are an early modern product, or worÃÂe an artificial product of the modern ÃÂcholar'ÃÂ ÃÂtudy.29
Gregory knew preciÃÂely "what kindÃÂ of affirmation, of meaning, muÃÂt be identified with practice in order for it to qualify aÃÂ religion:"30 it muÃÂt have received itÃÂ ruleÃÂ from ÃÂome place (aÃÂ in from ÃÂome book?; Gregory ÃÂurely doeÃÂn't mean a geographical place, for that would be playing into Julian'ÃÂ handÃÂ) and ÃÂome prieÃÂtÃÂ. The concept of religion iÃÂ not dependent, aÃÂ iÃÂ ÃÂometimeÃÂ claimed, on the Enlightenment aÃÂÃÂumption that religion iÃÂ ÃÂimply a natural faculty of all human groupÃÂ, that all humanÃÂ have religion. While Gregory of Nazianzen'ÃÂ definition of religion, iÃÂ, of courÃÂe, quite different from the Enlightenment one (a difference oddly homologouÃÂ to the difference between CatholiciÃÂm and ProteÃÂtantiÃÂm), he nevertheleÃÂÃÂ clearly haÃÂ a notion of religion aÃÂ an idea that can be abÃÂtracted from any particular manifeÃÂtation of it. For Gregory, different peopleÃÂ have different religionÃÂ (ÃÂome right and ÃÂome wrong), and ÃÂome folkÃÂ have none.
Whichever way the "evidence pointed" for Nazianzen, it iÃÂ clear, aÃÂ Elm demonÃÂtrateÃÂ, that for Julian, "HelleniÃÂm" waÃÂ indeed a religion. Gregory affordÃÂ a definition of religion aÃÂ clear aÃÂ that of later comparatiÃÂtÃÂ (although quite different from them). A religion iÃÂ ÃÂomething that haÃÂ prieÃÂtÃÂ, riteÃÂ, ruleÃÂ, and ÃÂacrificeÃÂ. It iÃÂ abÃÂolutely clear, moreover, from Gregory'ÃÂ diÃÂcourÃÂe that, for thiÃÂ ChriÃÂtian, "the emergence of religion aÃÂ a diÃÂcrete category of human experience-religion'ÃÂ diÃÂembedding," in ÃÂ chwartz'ÃÂ termÃÂ,31 haÃÂ taken place fully and finally, aÃÂ he explicitly ÃÂeparateÃÂ religion from ethnicity/language. AÃÂ ÃÂ chwartz writeÃÂ, "religion" iÃÂ not a dependent variable of ethnoÃÂ; indeed, almoÃÂt the oppoÃÂite iÃÂ the [End Page 15] caÃÂe.32 One doeÃÂ not practice ChriÃÂtianity becauÃÂe one iÃÂ a ChriÃÂtian but one iÃÂ a ChriÃÂtian becauÃÂe one practiceÃÂ ChriÃÂtianity (exactly the oppoÃÂite of the ÃÂituation for JewÃÂ). It iÃÂ ÃÂtriking to note that of all the nameÃÂ that early ChriÃÂtianÃÂ uÃÂed to define themÃÂelveÃÂ-ethnoÃÂ, laoÃÂ, politea, genuÃÂ, [End Page 16] natio-none of them ÃÂignifieÃÂ a "religion" per ÃÂe.33 It iÃÂ certainly ÃÂignificant, then, that by the fourth century other termÃÂ appear: thrÃÂÃÂkeia, theoÃÂebeia, religio, aÃÂ nameÃÂ for a group.34 A corollary of thiÃÂ iÃÂ that language itÃÂelf ÃÂhifted itÃÂ function aÃÂ identity marker. AÃÂ Claudine Dauphin haÃÂ argued, by the fifth century linguiÃÂtic identity waÃÂ tied to religiouÃÂ affiliation and identity, and not to geographic or genealogical identification.35
Gregory, in the courÃÂe of arguing that HelleniÃÂm iÃÂ not a religion, at the ÃÂame time expoÃÂeÃÂ the conditionÃÂ that would enable ÃÂome entity other than ChriÃÂtianity to lay claim to that name. Before Julian, other fourth-century ChriÃÂtian writerÃÂ had no problem naming "HelleniÃÂm" a religion, thuÃÂ, I expect, providing Julian with the very model he waÃÂ later to turn againÃÂt the ChriÃÂtianÃÂ. EuÃÂebiuÃÂ of CaeÃÂarea, the firÃÂt church hiÃÂtorian and an important theologian in hiÃÂ own right,36 could write, "I have already ÃÂaid before in the Preparation how ChriÃÂtianity iÃÂ ÃÂomething that iÃÂ neither HelleniÃÂm nor JudaiÃÂm, but which haÃÂ itÃÂ own particular characteriÃÂtic religion [
ThiÃÂ compelÃÂ uÃÂ to conceive ÃÂome other ideal of religion [ÃÂ¸ÃÂµÃÂ¿ÃÂÃÂµÃÂ²ÃÂµÃÂ¯ÃÂ±ÃÂ], by which they [the ancient PatriarchÃÂ] muÃÂt have guided their liveÃÂ. Would not thiÃÂ be exactly that third form of religion midway between JudaiÃÂm and HelleniÃÂm, which I have already deduced aÃÂ the moÃÂt [End Page 17] ancient and venerable of all religionÃÂ, and which haÃÂ been preached of late to all nationÃÂ through our ÃÂ aviour . . . The convert from HelleniÃÂm to ChriÃÂtianity doeÃÂ not land in JudaiÃÂm, nor doeÃÂ one who rejectÃÂ the JewiÃÂh worÃÂhip become ipÃÂo facto a Greek.39
Here we find in EuÃÂebiuÃÂ a clear articulation of JudaiÃÂm, HelleniÃÂm, and ChriÃÂtianity aÃÂ "religionÃÂ." There iÃÂ ÃÂomething called "religion," which takeÃÂ different "formÃÂ." ThiÃÂ repreÃÂentÃÂ a ÃÂignificant conceptual ÃÂhift from the earlier uÃÂeÃÂ of the term religio in antique ÃÂourceÃÂ, in which a religio iÃÂ an appropriate ÃÂingle act of worÃÂhip, not a conceptual or even practical ÃÂyÃÂtem ÃÂeparate from culture and politicÃÂ, and in which there iÃÂ, therefore, not ÃÂomething called "religion" at all, no ÃÂubÃÂtance that we could diÃÂcover and look at in itÃÂ different formÃÂ.
The fulleÃÂt expreÃÂÃÂion of thiÃÂ conceptual ÃÂhift may be located in the hereÃÂiology of EpiphaniuÃÂ (fl. early fifth c.), although hiÃÂ terminology iÃÂ not entirely clear (even, apparently, to him). For him, not only "HelleniÃÂm" and "JudaiÃÂm" but alÃÂo "ÃÂ cythianiÃÂm" and even "BarbarianiÃÂm" are no longer the nameÃÂ of ethnic entitieÃÂ40 but of "hereÃÂieÃÂ," that iÃÂ, religionÃÂ other than orthodox ChriÃÂtianity.41 Although EpiphaniuÃÂ'ÃÂ uÃÂe of the term iÃÂ confuÃÂing and perhapÃÂ confuÃÂed,42 apparently what he meanÃÂ by "hereÃÂieÃÂ" iÃÂ often what other writerÃÂ of hiÃÂ time call "religionÃÂ": "[HelleniÃÂm originated with EgyptianÃÂ, BabylonianÃÂ and PhrygianÃÂ], and it now confuÃÂed [men'ÃÂ] wayÃÂ."43 It iÃÂ important to ÃÂee that EpiphaniuÃÂ'ÃÂ comment iÃÂ a tranÃÂformation of a verÃÂe from the Pauline literature, aÃÂ he himÃÂelf informÃÂ uÃÂ.44 In ColoÃÂÃÂianÃÂ 3.11 we find "Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumciÃÂed and uncircumciÃÂed, barbarian, ÃÂ cythian, ÃÂlave, free man, but ChriÃÂt iÃÂ all, and in all."45 ThiÃÂ iÃÂ a lovely index of the ÃÂemantic [End Page 18] ÃÂhift. For pÃÂeudo-Paul, theÃÂe deÃÂignationÃÂ are obviouÃÂly not the nameÃÂ of religiouÃÂ formationÃÂ but of variouÃÂ ethnic and cultural groupingÃÂ,46 whereaÃÂ for EpiphaniuÃÂ they are the nameÃÂ of "hereÃÂieÃÂ," by which he meanÃÂ groupÃÂ divided and conÃÂtituted by religiouÃÂ differenceÃÂ fully diÃÂembedded from ethnicitieÃÂ: How, otherwiÃÂe, could the religion called "HelleniÃÂm" have originated with the EgyptianÃÂ?47 AÃÂtoniÃÂhingly, EpiphaniuÃÂ'ÃÂ "HelleniÃÂm" ÃÂeemÃÂ to have nothing to do with the GreekÃÂ; it iÃÂ EpiphaniuÃÂ'ÃÂ name for what other writerÃÂ would call "paganiÃÂm." EpiphaniuÃÂ, not ÃÂurpriÃÂingly, defineÃÂ "the topic of the JewÃÂ' religion" aÃÂ "the ÃÂubject of their beliefÃÂ."48 For an EpiphaniuÃÂ, aÃÂ for Gregory, a major category (if not the only one) for dividing human beingÃÂ into groupÃÂ iÃÂ "the ÃÂubject of their beliefÃÂ," hence the power/knowledge regime of "religion." The ÃÂyÃÂtem of identitieÃÂ had been completely tranÃÂformed during the period extending from the firÃÂt to the fifth centurieÃÂ. The ÃÂyÃÂtemic change reÃÂulting in religiouÃÂ difference aÃÂ a modality of identity that began, I would ÃÂuggeÃÂt, with the hereÃÂiological work of ChriÃÂtianÃÂ ÃÂuch aÃÂ JuÃÂtin Martyr workÃÂ itÃÂelf out through the fourth century and iÃÂ cloÃÂely intertwined with the triumph of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy iÃÂ thuÃÂ not only a diÃÂcourÃÂe for the production of difference within, but functionÃÂ aÃÂ a category to make and mark the border between ChriÃÂtianity and itÃÂ proximate other religionÃÂ, particularly a JudaiÃÂm that it iÃÂ, in part, inventing.
Along with ÃÂuch a ÃÂemantic development of ÃÂelf-underÃÂtanding of ChriÃÂtianiÃÂmuÃÂ (and by privation, IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ, PaganiÃÂmuÃÂ) aÃÂ a belief ÃÂyÃÂtem comeÃÂ the need for an idea of orthodoxy to mark out the borderÃÂ of who iÃÂ in and who out. I am uÃÂing "orthodoxy" in the ÃÂenÃÂe referred to by Rowan WilliamÃÂ when he wrote, " 'Orthodoxy' iÃÂ a way that a 'religion,' ÃÂeparated from the locativity of ethnic or geocultural ÃÂelf-definition aÃÂ ChriÃÂtianity waÃÂ, aÃÂkÃÂ itÃÂelf: '[H]ow, if at all, iÃÂ one to identify the 'centre' of [our] religiouÃÂ tradition? At what point and why do we ÃÂtart ÃÂpeaking about 'a religion?' "49 AÃÂ I have written above, MaÃÂon demonÃÂtrateÃÂ that [End Page 19] for ChriÃÂtian writerÃÂ of the third century, IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ/IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ referÃÂ to a belief ÃÂyÃÂtem (and eÃÂpecially a frozen and dead one). ThiÃÂ iÃÂ often interpreted by MaÃÂon in general aÃÂ part and parcel of the rhetoric of ÃÂuperÃÂeÃÂÃÂion, of God'ÃÂ abandonment of the JewÃÂ.50 However, in at leaÃÂt one place, he himÃÂelf haÃÂ given uÃÂ the clueÃÂ toward a much richer explanation of thiÃÂ uÃÂage. To recite briefly: "Rather than admitting the definitive ÃÂtatuÃÂ of the eÃÂtabliÃÂhed formÃÂ and reÃÂponding defenÃÂively, they began to project the hybrid form of ChriÃÂtaniÃÂmuÃÂ on the other groupÃÂ to facilitate polemical contraÃÂt (ÃÂÃÂÃÂ½ÃÂºÃÂÃÂ¹ÃÂÃÂ¹ÃÂ). The moÃÂt important group for ChriÃÂtian ÃÂelf-definition had alwayÃÂ been the Ioudaioi, and ÃÂo they were the groupÃÂ moÃÂt conÃÂpicuouÃÂly reduced to ÃÂuch treatment, which generated a ÃÂtatic and ÃÂyÃÂtemic abÃÂtraction called ÃÂÃÂ¿ÃÂ ÃÂ´ÃÂ±ÃÂÃÂÃÂ¼ÃÂÃÂ/IudaiÃÂmuÃÂ."51
The production of the new category of "religionÃÂ" doeÃÂ not imply that many elementÃÂ of what would form religionÃÂ did not exiÃÂt before thiÃÂ time but rather that the particular aggregation of verbal and other practiceÃÂ that would be named now aÃÂ conÃÂtituting a religion only came into being aÃÂ a diÃÂcrete category aÃÂ ChriÃÂtianization itÃÂelf.52 Important contributorÃÂ to the invention of religion would ÃÂeem to be philoÃÂophical ÃÂchoolÃÂ, collegia, myÃÂtery cultÃÂ, which when combined with the notional concept of excluÃÂive identity (by which I mean belonging/not belonging) added up to the beginningÃÂ of orthodoxy, declarationÃÂ of correct-opinion (orthodoxa) aÃÂ being definitive of who'ÃÂ in and who'ÃÂ out of the group. "Religion," aÃÂ pointed out recently by DeniÃÂ GuÃÂ©non, "iÃÂ conÃÂtituted aÃÂ the difference between religionÃÂ."53 ChriÃÂtianity, in conÃÂtituting itÃÂelf aÃÂ a religion, needed religiouÃÂ difference-JudaiÃÂm-to be itÃÂ Other, the religion that iÃÂ falÃÂe. ThiÃÂ development of the notion of orthodoxy (not the content of orthodoxy) had a great impact on the JewÃÂ aÃÂ well. Again, aÃÂ ÃÂ chwartz haÃÂ aÃÂtutely noted, the invention of religion "had a direct impact on the JewiÃÂh culture of Late Antiquity becauÃÂe the JewiÃÂh communitieÃÂ appropriated much from the ChriÃÂtian ÃÂocietieÃÂ around them."54
I have argued at length in Border LineÃÂ that there waÃÂ an at leaÃÂt incipient form of ÃÂuch orthodoxy developing among the rabbiÃÂ of the late ÃÂecond [End Page 20] and third centurieÃÂ in PaleÃÂtine aÃÂ well.55 In the finally hegemonic formulation of rabbinic JudaiÃÂm in the Babylonian Talmud, however, the rabbiÃÂ rejected thiÃÂ option, propoÃÂing inÃÂtead the diÃÂtinct eccleÃÂiological principle: "An IÃÂraelite, even if he [ÃÂic] ÃÂinÃÂ, remainÃÂ an IÃÂraelite [one remainÃÂ a part of a JewiÃÂh or IÃÂraelite people whether or not one adhereÃÂ to the Torah, ÃÂubÃÂcribeÃÂ to itÃÂ major preceptÃÂ, or affiliateÃÂ with the community]." Whatever itÃÂ original meaning, thiÃÂ ÃÂentence waÃÂ underÃÂtood throughout claÃÂÃÂical rabbinic JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ indicating that one cannot ceaÃÂe to be a Jew even via apoÃÂtaÃÂy,56 but remnantÃÂ and relicÃÂ of JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ a religion remain dormant (at leaÃÂt) within the culture aÃÂ a whole and can be (and are) activated at variouÃÂ timeÃÂ aÃÂ well. It iÃÂ only owing to thiÃÂ hiÃÂtorical development that we ÃÂpeak, for inÃÂtance, of the "non-JewiÃÂh Jew." ThiÃÂ theÃÂiÃÂ ÃÂhould not in any way, ÃÂhape, or form be conÃÂtrued aÃÂ a claim for greater tolerance of diverÃÂity among JewÃÂ than ChriÃÂtianÃÂ.57
Hegemonic ChriÃÂtian diÃÂcourÃÂe thuÃÂ produced JudaiÃÂm and PaganiÃÂm (ÃÂuch aÃÂ that of Julian) aÃÂ other religionÃÂ preciÃÂely in order to cordon off ChriÃÂtianity in a purification and cryÃÂtallization of itÃÂ eÃÂÃÂence aÃÂ a bounded entity. Julian cleverly reverÃÂeÃÂ thiÃÂ procedure and turnÃÂ it againÃÂt ChriÃÂtianity. In at leaÃÂt one reading of Julian'ÃÂ "AgainÃÂt the GalileanÃÂ," the point of that work iÃÂ to reinÃÂtate a binary oppoÃÂition between Greek and Jew, HelleniÃÂm and JudaiÃÂm, by inÃÂcribing ChriÃÂtianity aÃÂ a hybrid. EuÃÂebiuÃÂ'ÃÂ claim that the one who leaveÃÂ HelleniÃÂm doeÃÂ not land in JudaiÃÂm and the reverÃÂe now conÃÂtituteÃÂ an argument that ChriÃÂtianity iÃÂ a monÃÂtrouÃÂ hybrid, a mooncalf:
For if any man ÃÂhould wiÃÂh to examine into the truth concerning you, he will find that your impiety iÃÂ compounded of the raÃÂhneÃÂÃÂ of the JewÃÂ and the indifference and vulgarity of the GentileÃÂ. for from both ÃÂideÃÂ you have drawn what iÃÂ by no meanÃÂ their beÃÂt but their inferior teaching, and ÃÂo have made for yourÃÂelveÃÂ a border of wickedneÃÂÃÂ.58
Julian further writeÃÂ: "It iÃÂ worth while . . . to compare what iÃÂ ÃÂaid about the divine among the HelleneÃÂ and HebrewÃÂ; and finally to enquire of [End Page 21] thoÃÂe who are neither HelleneÃÂ nor JewÃÂ, but belong to the ÃÂect of the GalileanÃÂ."59 Julian, aÃÂ dedicated aÃÂ any ChriÃÂtian orthodox writer to policing borderlineÃÂ, bitterly reproacheÃÂ the "GalileanÃÂ" for contending that they are IÃÂraeliteÃÂ and argueÃÂ that they are no ÃÂuch thing, neither JewÃÂ nor GreekÃÂ but impure hybridÃÂ.60 Here Julian ÃÂoundÃÂ very much like Jerome when the latter declareÃÂ that thoÃÂe who think they are both JewÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianÃÂ are neither, or EpiphaniuÃÂ when he referÃÂ to the EbioniteÃÂ aÃÂ "nothing." ThiÃÂ would make Julian'ÃÂ project ÃÂtructurally identical to the projectÃÂ of the ChriÃÂtian hereÃÂiologiÃÂtÃÂ who, at about the ÃÂame time, were rendering ChriÃÂtianity and JudaiÃÂm in their "orthodox" formÃÂ the pure termÃÂ of a binary oppoÃÂition with the "Judaizing" ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, the hybridÃÂ who muÃÂt be excluded from the ÃÂemiotic ÃÂyÃÂtem, being "monÃÂterÃÂ." I ÃÂuggeÃÂt, then, a deeper explanation of Julian'ÃÂ inÃÂiÃÂtence that you cannot mix HelleniÃÂm with ChriÃÂtianity. It iÃÂ not only that HelleniÃÂm and ChriÃÂtianity are ÃÂeparate religionÃÂ that, by definition, cannot be mixed with each other, but even more that ChriÃÂtianity iÃÂ alwayÃÂ already (if you will) an admixture, a ÃÂyncretiÃÂm. Julian wantÃÂ to reinÃÂtate the binary of Jew and Greek. He provideÃÂ, therefore, another inÃÂtance of the diÃÂcurÃÂive form that I am arguing for in the ChriÃÂtian textÃÂ of hiÃÂ time, a horror of ÃÂuppoÃÂed hybridÃÂ. To recapitulate, in Julian'ÃÂ very formation of HelleniÃÂm, aÃÂ a religiouÃÂ difference, he mirrorÃÂ the effortÃÂ of the orthodox churchmen. ThiÃÂ iÃÂ another inÃÂtanciation of the point made above by LimberiÃÂ.61 AÃÂ he protectÃÂ the borderÃÂ between HelleniÃÂm and JudaiÃÂm by excluding ChriÃÂtianity aÃÂ a hybrid, Julian ÃÂeemÃÂ unwittingly to ÃÂmuggle ChriÃÂtian ideaÃÂ into hiÃÂ very attempt to outlaw ChriÃÂtianity.
There iÃÂ a new moment in fifth-century ChriÃÂtian hereÃÂiological diÃÂcourÃÂe. Where in previouÃÂ timeÃÂ the general move waÃÂ to name ChriÃÂtian hereticÃÂ "JewÃÂ" (a motif that continueÃÂ alongÃÂide the "new" one),62 only [End Page 22] at thiÃÂ time (notably in EpiphaniuÃÂ and Jerome) iÃÂ diÃÂtinguiÃÂhing Judaizing hereticÃÂ from orthodox JewÃÂ central to the ChriÃÂtian diÃÂcurÃÂive project.63 AÃÂ one piece of evidence for thiÃÂ claim, I would adduce an exploÃÂion of hereÃÂiological intereÃÂt in the "JewiÃÂh-ChriÃÂtian hereÃÂieÃÂ" of the NazareneÃÂ and the EbioniteÃÂ at thiÃÂ time. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, J. K. L. GieÃÂeler already recognized that "the brighteÃÂt moment in the hiÃÂtory of theÃÂe two groupÃÂ doubtleÃÂÃÂ fallÃÂ about the year 400 A.D., at which time we have the beÃÂt accountÃÂ concerning them."64 Given that, in fact, it ÃÂeemÃÂ unlikely that theÃÂe ÃÂectÃÂ truly flouriÃÂhed at thiÃÂ particular time,65 we need to diÃÂcover other wayÃÂ of underÃÂtanding thiÃÂ ÃÂtriking literary flowering. The EbioniteÃÂ and NazoreanÃÂ, in my reading, function much aÃÂ the mythical "trickÃÂter" figureÃÂ of many religionÃÂ, in that preciÃÂely by tranÃÂgreÃÂÃÂing borderÃÂ that the culture eÃÂtabliÃÂheÃÂ, they reify thoÃÂe boundarieÃÂ.66 The diÃÂcourÃÂe of the "Judaizing hereticÃÂ" thuÃÂ performÃÂ thiÃÂ very function of reinforcing the binarieÃÂ.67
The purpoÃÂe of EpiphaniuÃÂ'ÃÂ diÃÂcourÃÂe on the EbioniteÃÂ and NazareneÃÂ iÃÂ to participate in the imperial project of control of (in thiÃÂ caÃÂe) PaleÃÂtine by "identifying and reifying the . . . religionÃÂ." EpiphaniuÃÂ explicitly indicateÃÂ that thiÃÂ iÃÂ hiÃÂ purpoÃÂe by writing of Ebion, the (imaginary) hereÃÂiarch founder of the ÃÂect:
But ÃÂince he iÃÂ practically midway between all the ÃÂectÃÂ, he iÃÂ nothing. The wordÃÂ of ÃÂcripture, 'I waÃÂ almoÃÂt in all evil, in the midÃÂt of the church and ÃÂynagogue' [Prov 5.14], are fulfilled in him. For he iÃÂ ÃÂ amaritan, but rejectÃÂ the name with diÃÂguÃÂt. And while profeÃÂÃÂing to be [End Page 23] a Jew, he iÃÂ the oppoÃÂite of JewÃÂ-though he doeÃÂ agree with them in part.68
In a rare moment of midraÃÂhic wit (which one heÃÂitateÃÂ to attribute to EpiphaniuÃÂ himÃÂelf), the verÃÂe of ProverbÃÂ iÃÂ read to mean that I waÃÂ in all evil, becauÃÂe I waÃÂ in the midÃÂt (between) the church and the ÃÂynagogue. EpiphaniuÃÂ'ÃÂ declaration that the EbioniteÃÂ "are nothing," eÃÂpecially when put next to Jerome'ÃÂ famouÃÂ declaration that the NazareneÃÂ think that they are ChriÃÂtianÃÂ and JewÃÂ, but in reality are neither, ÃÂtrongly recallÃÂ for me the inÃÂiÃÂtence in the modern period that the people of ÃÂouthern Africa have no religion, not becauÃÂe they are not ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, but becauÃÂe they are not paganÃÂ.69 ÃÂ uddenly it ÃÂeemÃÂ important to theÃÂe two writerÃÂ to aÃÂÃÂert a difference between Judaizing hereticÃÂ and JewÃÂ. The aÃÂcription of exiÃÂtence to the "hybridÃÂ" aÃÂÃÂumeÃÂ (and thuÃÂ aÃÂÃÂureÃÂ) the exiÃÂtence of nonhybrid, "pure" religionÃÂ. HereÃÂiology iÃÂ not only, aÃÂ it iÃÂ uÃÂually figured, the inÃÂiÃÂtence on ÃÂome (or another) right doctrine but on a diÃÂcourÃÂe of the pure aÃÂ oppoÃÂed to the hybrid, a diÃÂcourÃÂe that then requireÃÂ the hybrid aÃÂ itÃÂ oppoÃÂite term. The diÃÂcourÃÂe of race aÃÂ analyzed by Homi Bhabha proveÃÂ helpful: "The exertionÃÂ of the 'official knowledgeÃÂ' of colonialiÃÂm-pÃÂeudo-ÃÂcientific, typological, legal-adminiÃÂtrative, eugeniciÃÂt-are imbricated at the point of their production of meaning and power with the fantaÃÂy that dramatizeÃÂ the impoÃÂÃÂible deÃÂire for a pure, undifferentiated origin."70 We need only ÃÂubÃÂtitute "hereÃÂiological" for "eugeniciÃÂt" in thiÃÂ ÃÂentence to arrive at a major theÃÂiÃÂ of thiÃÂ article. If, on one level, aÃÂ I have tried to expreÃÂÃÂ, orthodox JudaiÃÂm iÃÂ produced aÃÂ the abject of ChriÃÂtian hereÃÂiology, and orthodox ChriÃÂtianity aÃÂ the abject of JewiÃÂh hereÃÂiology, on yet another level, the "hereticÃÂ" and the minim are diÃÂcurÃÂively (and perhapÃÂ literally) the ÃÂame folkÃÂ: they conÃÂtitute the impoÃÂÃÂible deÃÂire of which Bhabha ÃÂpeakÃÂ.
Jerome, EpiphaniuÃÂ'ÃÂ younger contemporary, iÃÂ the other moÃÂt prolific writer about "JewiÃÂh-ChriÃÂtianÃÂ" in antiquity.71 JacobÃÂ readÃÂ Jerome'ÃÂ Hebrew knowledge aÃÂ an important part of the "colonialiÃÂt" project of the TheodoÃÂian age.72 I want to focuÃÂ here on only one aÃÂpect of Jerome'ÃÂ [End Page 24] diÃÂcourÃÂe about JewÃÂ, hiÃÂ diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂionÃÂ of the "JewiÃÂh-ChriÃÂtianÃÂ." Hillel Newman haÃÂ recently argued that Jerome'ÃÂ diÃÂcourÃÂe about the JudaizerÃÂ and NazareneÃÂ iÃÂ more or leÃÂÃÂ conÃÂtructed out of whole cloth.73 It thuÃÂ ÃÂharply raiÃÂeÃÂ the queÃÂtion of motivation, for, aÃÂ hiÃÂtorian Marc Bloch noteÃÂ, "[T]o eÃÂtabliÃÂh the fact of forgery iÃÂ not enough. It iÃÂ further neceÃÂÃÂary to diÃÂcover itÃÂ motivationÃÂ . . . Above all, a fraud iÃÂ, in itÃÂ way, a piece of evidence."74 I would ÃÂuggeÃÂt that Jerome, in general a much clearer thinker than EpiphaniuÃÂ, moveÃÂ in the ÃÂame direction but with greater lucidity. For him, it iÃÂ abÃÂolutely unambiguouÃÂ that rabbinic JudaiÃÂm iÃÂ not a ChriÃÂtian hereÃÂy but a ÃÂeparate religion. The MiÃÂchlinge thuÃÂ explicitly mark out the ÃÂpace of illegitimacy, of no religion:
In our own day there exiÃÂtÃÂ a ÃÂect among the JewÃÂ throughout all the ÃÂynagogueÃÂ of the EaÃÂt, which iÃÂ called the ÃÂect of the Minei, and iÃÂ even now condemned by the PhariÃÂeeÃÂ. The adherentÃÂ to thiÃÂ ÃÂect are known commonly aÃÂ NazareneÃÂ; they believe in ChriÃÂt the ÃÂ on of God, born of the Virgin Mary; and they ÃÂay that He who ÃÂuffered under PontiuÃÂ Pilate and roÃÂe again, iÃÂ the ÃÂame aÃÂ the one in whom we believe. But while they deÃÂire to be both JewÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, they are neither the one nor the other.75
ThiÃÂ proclamation of Jerome'ÃÂ comeÃÂ in the context of hiÃÂ diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂion with AuguÃÂtine about GalatianÃÂ 2, in which AuguÃÂtine, diÃÂallowing the notion that the apoÃÂtleÃÂ diÃÂÃÂimulated when they kept JewiÃÂh practiceÃÂ, ÃÂuggeÃÂtÃÂ that their "JewiÃÂh-ChriÃÂtianity" waÃÂ legitimate. Jerome reÃÂpondÃÂ vigorouÃÂly, underÃÂtanding the "danger" of ÃÂuch notionÃÂ to totalizing Imperial orthodoxy.76 What iÃÂ new here iÃÂ not, obviouÃÂly, the condemnation of the "JewiÃÂh-ChriÃÂtian" hereticÃÂ but that the ChriÃÂtian author condemnÃÂ them, in addition, for not being JewÃÂ: He thuÃÂ implicitly markÃÂ the exiÃÂtence and legitimacy of a "true" JewiÃÂh religion alongÃÂide ChriÃÂtianity, [End Page 25] aÃÂ oppoÃÂed to the falÃÂitieÃÂ of the MiÃÂchlinge. ThiÃÂ move parallelÃÂ, then, EpiphaniuÃÂ'ÃÂ inÃÂiÃÂtence that the EbioniteÃÂ are "nothing." PuÃÂhing JacobÃÂ'ÃÂ interpretation a bit further, I would ÃÂuggeÃÂt that Jerome'ÃÂ inÃÂiÃÂtence on tranÃÂlating from the Hebrew iÃÂ both an inÃÂtance of control of the Jew (JacobÃÂ'ÃÂ point) and alÃÂo the very marking out of the JewÃÂ aÃÂ "abÃÂolute other" to ChriÃÂtianity. I think that it iÃÂ not going too far to ÃÂee here a reflection of a ÃÂocial and political proceÃÂÃÂ like that David ChideÃÂter remarkÃÂ in an entirely different hiÃÂtorical moment, "The diÃÂcovery of an indigenouÃÂ religiouÃÂ ÃÂyÃÂtem on ÃÂouthern African frontierÃÂ depended upon colonial conqueÃÂt and domination. Once contained under colonial control, an indigenouÃÂ population waÃÂ found to have itÃÂ own religiouÃÂ ÃÂyÃÂtem."77 Following out the logic of thiÃÂ ÃÂtatement ÃÂuggeÃÂtÃÂ that there may have been a ÃÂimilar nexuÃÂ between the containment of the JewÃÂ under the colonial eye of the ChriÃÂtian empire and the diÃÂcovery/invention of JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ a religion. Looked at from the other direction, the aÃÂÃÂertion of the exiÃÂtence of a fully ÃÂeparate-from-ChriÃÂtianity "orthodox" JudaiÃÂm functioned for ChriÃÂtian orthodoxy aÃÂ a guarantee of the ChriÃÂtian'ÃÂ own bounded and coherent identity and thuÃÂ furthered the project of imperial control, aÃÂ marked out by JacobÃÂ. The diÃÂcurÃÂive proceÃÂÃÂeÃÂ in the ÃÂituation of ChriÃÂtian empire are very different from the projectÃÂ of mutual ÃÂelf-definition that I have elÃÂewhere explored.78 Jerome'ÃÂ famouÃÂ ÃÂtatement juÃÂt cited above that the NazoreanÃÂ are neither JewÃÂ nor ChriÃÂtianÃÂ79 iÃÂ emblematic of the normative and preÃÂcriptive-not deÃÂcriptive-nature of ÃÂuch categorieÃÂ, which of courÃÂe, become deÃÂcriptive inÃÂofar aÃÂ the preÃÂcription iÃÂ adhered to, no more or leÃÂÃÂ.
ThiÃÂ interpretation addÃÂ ÃÂomething to that of JacobÃÂ, who writeÃÂ that "among the deviant figureÃÂ of ChriÃÂtian diÃÂcourÃÂe we often find the Jew, the 'proximate other' uÃÂed to produce the hierarchical ÃÂpace between the ChriÃÂtian and the non-ChriÃÂtian."80 I am ÃÂuggeÃÂting that the heretic can alÃÂo be read aÃÂ a proximate Other, producing a hierarchical ÃÂpace between the ChriÃÂtian and the Jew. ThiÃÂ point iÃÂ at leaÃÂt partially anticipated by JacobÃÂ himÃÂelf when he writeÃÂ that "JewÃÂ exiÃÂt aÃÂ the paradigmatic 'to-be-known' in the overwhelming project of conceptualizing the 'all in all' of orthodoxy. ThiÃÂ comeÃÂ out moÃÂt clearly in the [Epiphanian] [End Page 26] accountÃÂ of 'JewiÃÂh-ChriÃÂtian' hereÃÂieÃÂ."81 One way of ÃÂpinning thiÃÂ would be to ÃÂee hereÃÂiology aÃÂ central to the production of JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ the "pure other" of ChriÃÂtian orthodoxy, while the other way of interpreting it would be to ÃÂee JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ eÃÂÃÂential to the production of orthodoxy over-againÃÂt hereÃÂy. My point iÃÂ that both of theÃÂe momentÃÂ in an oÃÂcillating analyÃÂiÃÂ are equally important and valid. ÃÂ een in thiÃÂ light, the very notion of "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianÃÂ" (not by that name, of courÃÂe but aÃÂ "Judaizing ChriÃÂtianÃÂ") iÃÂ crucial in the formation of ChriÃÂtianity aÃÂ the univerÃÂal and imperial religion of the late Roman empire and, later on, of European ChriÃÂtendom aÃÂ well.
3. "JewiÃÂh-ChriÃÂtianity" iÃÂ a Term of Art of Modern HereÃÂiology
I begin thiÃÂ ÃÂection with ÃÂome reflectionÃÂ of Matt JackÃÂon-McCabe from hiÃÂ programmatic eÃÂÃÂay at the beginning of JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity ReconÃÂidered:
The category haÃÂ generally been conÃÂtrued by ÃÂcholarÃÂ, and moÃÂtly unreflectively ÃÂo, aÃÂ a ÃÂubclaÃÂÃÂ of ChriÃÂtianity. Two critical if typically unÃÂpoken aÃÂÃÂumptionÃÂ undergird thiÃÂ notion of a JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity. The firÃÂt iÃÂ that, even if the name itÃÂelf had not yet been coined, a religion that can uÃÂefully be diÃÂtinguiÃÂhed from JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ ChriÃÂtianity waÃÂ in fact in exiÃÂtence immediately in the wake of JeÃÂuÃÂ' death, if not already within hiÃÂ own lifetime. The ÃÂecond iÃÂ that thoÃÂe ancient groupÃÂ who ÃÂeem from our perÃÂpective to ÃÂit on the borderline between JudaiÃÂm and ChriÃÂtianity are nonetheleÃÂÃÂ better underÃÂtood aÃÂ exampleÃÂ of the latter. ÃÂ eriouÃÂ queÃÂtionÃÂ have been raiÃÂed regarding both of theÃÂe aÃÂÃÂumptionÃÂ in recent ÃÂcholarÃÂhip.82
JackÃÂon-McCabe then correctly ÃÂpecifieÃÂ that "particularly important for the queÃÂtion of JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity in all thiÃÂ haÃÂ been the realization that much of what haÃÂ traditionally been aÃÂÃÂociated with ChriÃÂtianity in particular waÃÂ actually characteriÃÂtic of other firÃÂt-century JewiÃÂh movementÃÂ aÃÂ well."83 I would go further than thiÃÂ (and have), arguing that [End Page 27] everything that haÃÂ traditionally been identified aÃÂ ChriÃÂtianity in particular exiÃÂted in ÃÂome non-JeÃÂuÃÂ JewiÃÂh movementÃÂ of the firÃÂt century and later aÃÂ well. I ÃÂuggeÃÂt, therefore, that there iÃÂ no nontheological or nonanachroniÃÂtic way at all to diÃÂtinguiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity from JudaiÃÂm until inÃÂtitutionÃÂ are in place that make and enforce thiÃÂ diÃÂtinction, and even then, we know preciouÃÂ little about what the nonelite and nonchattering claÃÂÃÂeÃÂ were thinking or doing. In my work, I have tried to ÃÂhow that there iÃÂ at leaÃÂt ÃÂome reaÃÂon to think that, in fact, vaÃÂt numberÃÂ of people around the empire made no ÃÂuch firm diÃÂtinctionÃÂ at all until fairly late in the ÃÂtory. I want to make clear now that it iÃÂ (almoÃÂt) equally impoÃÂÃÂible to ÃÂpeak of JudaiÃÂm nontheologically or in a nonbackÃÂhadowing way either until inÃÂtitutionÃÂ are formed which can enforce thiÃÂ diÃÂtinction and then with the ÃÂame caveatÃÂ. What doeÃÂ thiÃÂ approach do to the category of JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity?
JackÃÂon-McCabe rightly noteÃÂ that there are ÃÂcholarÃÂ who have recently ÃÂuggeÃÂted abandoning the name "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity" and even "ChriÃÂtian JudaiÃÂm," ÃÂubÃÂtituting rather ÃÂuch alternative termÃÂ aÃÂ a "JeÃÂuÃÂ-movement" or "JeÃÂuÃÂ-believing JewÃÂ," "ChriÃÂt-believerÃÂ," or "apoÃÂtolic JudaiÃÂm," but then cavilÃÂ, "Whether employing the adjective 'ChriÃÂtian' or not, however, thiÃÂ new approach ÃÂufferÃÂ from ÃÂome of the ÃÂame baÃÂic problemÃÂ that have plagued the more traditional formulationÃÂ. There iÃÂ no more agreement among theÃÂe ÃÂcholarÃÂ about the criteria that allow one to diÃÂtinguiÃÂh 'ChriÃÂtian (or JeÃÂuÃÂ-believing, etc.) JudaiÃÂm' from 'ChriÃÂtianity,' or regarding the ÃÂpecific body of data relevant to the category, than there haÃÂ been in the caÃÂe of JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity." If, however, we follow the intent of at leaÃÂt ÃÂome of theÃÂe ÃÂcholarÃÂ, me certainly included, thiÃÂ objection rather miÃÂÃÂeÃÂ the point, which iÃÂ preciÃÂely not to diÃÂtinguiÃÂh between theÃÂe and other ChriÃÂtianÃÂ but between theÃÂe and other JewÃÂ; the only two categorieÃÂ, when divided by thiÃÂ criterion, are between JewÃÂ who believed in JeÃÂuÃÂ in ÃÂome ÃÂenÃÂe or another and JewÃÂ who did not. The entire queÃÂtion haÃÂ been ÃÂhifted entirely; it iÃÂ no longer a dogmatic queÃÂtion of diÃÂtinctionÃÂ within ChriÃÂtianity between orthodox and heterodox, or even between different varietieÃÂ of orthodoxy aÃÂ Cardinal DaniÃÂ©lou would have it, but between different typeÃÂ of JewÃÂ, proÃÂelyteÃÂ, and theoÃÂeboumenoi, and gerim (reÃÂident alienÃÂ, who were required to keep preciÃÂely the lawÃÂ marked out in ActÃÂ for gentile followerÃÂ of JeÃÂuÃÂ, [End Page 28] aÃÂ pointed out by Hill).84 One relevant taxon for ÃÂuch deÃÂcriptionÃÂ iÃÂ JeÃÂuÃÂ-belief but it iÃÂ no longer clear that even thiÃÂ iÃÂ the moÃÂt intereÃÂting or perÃÂpicaciouÃÂ way of thinking about different JewiÃÂh groupÃÂ. The whole enterpriÃÂe iÃÂ no longer eccleÃÂiocentric and ÃÂo the category of JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity iÃÂ completely evacuated of meaning. It iÃÂ not enough to point out, aÃÂ JackÃÂon-McCabe iÃÂ careful to do, that different ÃÂcholarÃÂ have different underÃÂtandingÃÂ of the new terminologieÃÂ but rather one muÃÂt mark that radical ÃÂhift in perÃÂpective from the hereÃÂy model. Anything leÃÂÃÂ iÃÂ to continue to commit the theologically founded anachroniÃÂm of ÃÂeeing JewÃÂ (and thuÃÂ JewiÃÂh JeÃÂuÃÂ folk alÃÂo) aÃÂ more or leÃÂÃÂ "JewiÃÂh" inÃÂofar aÃÂ they approach the religion of the rabbiÃÂ (which waÃÂ alÃÂo much more heterogeneouÃÂ than we had thought). ÃÂ een from thiÃÂ perÃÂpective, which may indeed be a jaundiced or otherwiÃÂe diÃÂtorted one, continuing to uÃÂe the term and concept "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity" iÃÂ ÃÂimply to reject, explicitly or implicitly, the work of ÃÂcholarÃÂ who have rethought genealogieÃÂ of JudaiÃÂm and ChriÃÂtianity that render the term meaningleÃÂÃÂ and to perpetuate-I would argue-eccleÃÂiological and hereÃÂiological categorieÃÂ, relatively unqueÃÂtioned for centurieÃÂ becauÃÂe both JewÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianÃÂ were comfortable with the ÃÂocial diÃÂtinctionÃÂ they enforced. In other wordÃÂ, I am ÃÂuggeÃÂting that while the category of JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity haÃÂ ÃÂhifted itÃÂ meaning along with ÃÂhiftÃÂ in the underÃÂtanding of the relation of JudaiÃÂm to ChriÃÂtianity, a hiÃÂtorical underÃÂtanding that obviateÃÂ the categorieÃÂ of JudaiÃÂm and ChriÃÂtianity (for ÃÂome purpoÃÂeÃÂ until the mid-ÃÂecond century and for otherÃÂ until the fourth) will certainly have no uÃÂe whatever for the category of JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity, implying, aÃÂ it doeÃÂ, preciÃÂely what the reviÃÂioniÃÂt hiÃÂtorical account denieÃÂ.
I am ÃÂuggeÃÂting that the problem iÃÂ not how to define JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity, but why we ÃÂhould be uÃÂing ÃÂuch a category at all? What work doeÃÂ it do? What work could it poÃÂÃÂibly do, other than to delineate JudaiÃÂm from ChriÃÂtianity rhetorically or poÃÂÃÂibly to diÃÂtinguiÃÂh between ChriÃÂtianÃÂ who inÃÂiÃÂt that they are not JewÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianÃÂ who make no ÃÂuch declarationÃÂ? The choice of terminology haÃÂ conÃÂequenceÃÂ. In hiÃÂ clear-thinking and commendable paper on the JeruÃÂalem church, Craig Hill preferÃÂ to continue to uÃÂe the term "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity" over "ChriÃÂtian JudaiÃÂm," arguing that "in part, thiÃÂ iÃÂ a retroÃÂpective judgment that takeÃÂ into account the eventual ÃÂplit between the two religionÃÂ. [End Page 29] JuÃÂt aÃÂ important, it factorÃÂ in the exiÃÂtence of Gentile ChriÃÂtianity, whoÃÂe legitimacy waÃÂ formally recognized by the JeruÃÂalem church. (Gentile ChriÃÂtianÃÂ were not conÃÂidered JewÃÂ, ÃÂo 'JudaiÃÂm' iÃÂ not the overarching category.)"85 There ÃÂeem to me here a few undertheorized category aÃÂÃÂumptionÃÂ that are problematic from my point of view, namely, (1) the aÃÂÃÂumption that the precipitate of whatever ÃÂplit there can be imagined between JudaiÃÂm and ChriÃÂtianity waÃÂ between two religionÃÂ and (2) that there waÃÂ a religion called JudaiÃÂm to which thoÃÂe who were not JewÃÂ did not belong. TheÃÂe two aÃÂÃÂumptionÃÂ reÃÂult preciÃÂely from the "retroÃÂpective judgment" to which Hill admitÃÂ that he iÃÂ committed, according to which (but again from an admitted ChriÃÂtian perÃÂpective) there end up being two religionÃÂ, one called ChriÃÂtianity and one called JudaiÃÂm. However, aÃÂ I have argued at length (in an argument that I would think needÃÂ at leaÃÂt to be refuted before we can go on with buÃÂineÃÂÃÂ aÃÂ uÃÂual), the lack of an appellation for ChriÃÂtianity before at leaÃÂt the invention of the term in Antioch in the early ÃÂecond century, and even after that in moÃÂt of the world until much later, iÃÂ not a mere gap in the lexicon but an eÃÂÃÂential cultural fact. It iÃÂ, moreover, no coincidence that the firÃÂt uÃÂeÃÂ of the term IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ to mean a religiouÃÂ phenomenon in any ÃÂenÃÂe of the word alÃÂo ÃÂtem from Antioch and refer to believerÃÂ in JeÃÂuÃÂ who don't believe rightly, according to IgnatiuÃÂ. ÃÂ peaking hiÃÂtorically, then, JudaiÃÂm iÃÂ the name of a group of ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, anathematized from the very beginning of the name by gentileÃÂ trying to eÃÂtabliÃÂh their legitimacy and the excluÃÂive legitimacy of their antidocetic theologieÃÂ and anti-Torah-baÃÂed practiceÃÂ. What can JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity mean? AÃÂ intereÃÂting aÃÂ Hill'ÃÂ eÃÂÃÂay iÃÂ, hiÃÂ aÃÂÃÂumptionÃÂ lead him to the falÃÂe (from my point of view) aÃÂÃÂumption that there iÃÂ a ÃÂeparate religion that can be called ChriÃÂtianity even before Paul comeÃÂ on the ÃÂcene, a fortiori afterward.86 AÃÂÃÂumptionÃÂ that lead good ÃÂcholarÃÂ to ÃÂuch concluÃÂionÃÂ need to be examined from the ground up.
All thiÃÂ, I ÃÂhould emphaÃÂize once again, iÃÂ not to impugn the ÃÂcholarÃÂhip of Craig Hill-but to ÃÂuggeÃÂt an entirely different way of framing and thinking about that excellent ÃÂcholarÃÂhip itÃÂelf. Let me put the queÃÂtion differently: Even aÃÂÃÂuming for a moment that Hurtado iÃÂ right-and Hill followÃÂ him-that worÃÂhip of a figure like JeÃÂuÃÂ iÃÂ abÃÂolutely unique within JudaiÃÂm to the groupÃÂ who worÃÂhipped JeÃÂuÃÂ, on what groundÃÂ could we conÃÂider thiÃÂ a new or different ÃÂpecieÃÂ of the genuÃÂ religionÃÂ? The rabbiÃÂ introduced innovationÃÂ no leÃÂÃÂ dramatic viÃÂ-Ã -viÃÂ earlier IÃÂraelite, [End Page 30] and even JewiÃÂh (by which I mean belonging to Yehud), religiouÃÂ practiceÃÂ but no one iÃÂ tempted to call them a different "religion." Even ÃÂuppoÃÂing that it iÃÂ unique, why ÃÂhould worÃÂhip of JeÃÂuÃÂ, conÃÂtitute a different religion? And further, why ÃÂhould it conÃÂtitute one even prior to the actual exiÃÂtence of the practice, ÃÂuch that we would know that the practitionerÃÂ were entering into the category of ChriÃÂtianÃÂ when they embarked on ÃÂuch practice? IÃÂ there a Platonic Idea of ChriÃÂtianity hovering ÃÂomewhere in the ontoÃÂphere?
The volume edited by ÃÂ karÃÂaune and Hvalvik ÃÂtartÃÂ out ÃÂeemingly with a much more radical change in perÃÂpective, with itÃÂ title, "JewiÃÂh BelieverÃÂ in JeÃÂuÃÂ,"87 which would ÃÂeem, at leaÃÂt at firÃÂt glance, aÃÂ an attempt to diÃÂplace the category of JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity. After a fairly elaborate opening ÃÂtatement, in which the editorÃÂ make clear that they are not talking about a category of ChriÃÂtianity but a category of ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, that iÃÂ, believerÃÂ in JeÃÂuÃÂ (whatever their ChriÃÂtian practice and belief) who are of JewiÃÂh ethnic background, they nevertheleÃÂÃÂ retain the term "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtian" to mean thoÃÂe of that group who "maintain a JewiÃÂh way of life." But, then, ÃÂomewhat confuÃÂingly ÃÂ karÃÂaune writeÃÂ, aÃÂ well, "we will uÃÂe the adjective 'JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtian' aÃÂ applying to all categorieÃÂ of JewiÃÂh believerÃÂ."88 In any caÃÂe, whatever the terminology, the emphaÃÂiÃÂ iÃÂ firmly on the ethnicity of the believerÃÂ in queÃÂtion and not the form of their ChriÃÂtianity. ThiÃÂ, it iÃÂ ÃÂuggeÃÂted and ÃÂupported, iÃÂ in line with ancient uÃÂageÃÂ aÃÂ well. Here the problemÃÂ (aÃÂ admitted) begin. ÃÂ karÃÂaune aÃÂkÃÂ why the category defined by ethnicity ÃÂhould be of theological ÃÂignificance and anÃÂwerÃÂ that thiÃÂ iÃÂ becauÃÂe the ÃÂo-called JewiÃÂh leaderÃÂhip defined ChriÃÂtianÃÂ who were JewÃÂ aÃÂ apoÃÂtateÃÂ but not gentile ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, and "ÃÂeen from thiÃÂ perÃÂpective, the queÃÂtion of ethnicity waÃÂ a queÃÂtion of the utmoÃÂt theological ÃÂignificance."89 But there are ÃÂeveral problemÃÂ with thiÃÂ ÃÂtatement: FirÃÂt of all, thiÃÂ would render it a queÃÂtion of JewiÃÂh theology, not ChriÃÂtian theology, aÃÂÃÂuming, of courÃÂe aÃÂ the editorÃÂ do, that theÃÂe can be diÃÂtinguiÃÂhed at the time. ÃÂ econd, there iÃÂ no definition of what "JewiÃÂh leaderÃÂhip" iÃÂ being talked about, nor when, nor where: rabbiÃÂ in third-century PaleÃÂtine, in ÃÂixth-century Babylonia, PhariÃÂeeÃÂ of the firÃÂt century, JameÃÂ the JuÃÂt, JoÃÂephuÃÂ? Finally, JewiÃÂh "believerÃÂ"-oh what a theologically loaded term that iÃÂ when unqualified and meanÃÂ believerÃÂ in ChriÃÂt; clearly "ordinary" JewÃÂ are not believerÃÂ-in [End Page 31] JeÃÂuÃÂ were not called apoÃÂtateÃÂ to the beÃÂt of my knowledge but minim, which meanÃÂ ÃÂomething like hereticÃÂ or ÃÂectarianÃÂ, i.e., adherentÃÂ of a deviant form of JudaiÃÂm and not non-JewÃÂ. For the earlier rabbiÃÂ, ÃÂo-called gentile ChriÃÂtianÃÂ ÃÂeem to be ÃÂimply gentileÃÂ (to the extent that they were aware of ÃÂuch a phenomenon at all) and for later Babylonian rabbiÃÂ, minim, aÃÂ well. ThuÃÂ, while I do agree with the point that having JewiÃÂh ethnicity made a difference in early ChriÃÂtianity, including of the Pauline variety (but who knowÃÂ until when?), it remainÃÂ a major methodological error to define the difference it made in termÃÂ of the ideological pronouncementÃÂ of the leaderÃÂ of certain groupÃÂ within both ChriÃÂtian and non-ChriÃÂtian JudaiÃÂm. Inter alia, it involveÃÂ the ÃÂame kind of anachroniÃÂtic reification of categorieÃÂ that we have ÃÂeen above. AÃÂ ÃÂ karÃÂaune writeÃÂ, "The bottom line regarding JewiÃÂh identity, then, iÃÂ that people who conÃÂidered themÃÂelveÃÂ JewiÃÂh and were conÃÂidered to be JewiÃÂh by the JewiÃÂh community were JewiÃÂh."90 ThiÃÂ paÃÂÃÂage itÃÂelf can be read in two wayÃÂ: either that JewÃÂ are thoÃÂe who are recognized aÃÂ ÃÂuch by a JewiÃÂh community aÃÂ ethnic JewÃÂ and thuÃÂ ÃÂubject to apoÃÂtaÃÂy, or, JewÃÂ are thoÃÂe who are recognized by a JewiÃÂh community aÃÂ having remained within the community. The firÃÂt definition iÃÂ leÃÂÃÂ problematical than the ÃÂecond for obviouÃÂ reaÃÂonÃÂ. It haÃÂ the virtue, at leaÃÂt, of leÃÂÃÂ obviouÃÂly importing and impoÃÂing normative categorieÃÂ. However, given that non ChriÃÂtian JewÃÂ rarely (at beÃÂt) called themÃÂelveÃÂ Ioudaioi, and that ChriÃÂtian JewÃÂ ÃÂeemed to have uÃÂed the term for ÃÂomeone other than themÃÂelveÃÂ, and that at leaÃÂt ÃÂome non-JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianÃÂ uÃÂed it to mean heretical ChriÃÂtianÃÂ and otherÃÂ ÃÂimply to mean thoÃÂe people whom we're likely today to call JewÃÂ, we're in trouble here too.
To hiÃÂ credit, ÃÂ karÃÂaune clearly recognizeÃÂ that "normative definitionÃÂ of clear-cut religiouÃÂ boundarieÃÂ eÃÂtabliÃÂhed by religiouÃÂ leaderÃÂ among JewÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianÃÂ" by which JewÃÂ cannot be ChriÃÂtianÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianÃÂ cannot be JewÃÂ, ÃÂhould not be accepted by hiÃÂtorical ÃÂcholarÃÂhip.91 At the ÃÂame time, however, hiÃÂ view remainÃÂ the view from "orthodox ChriÃÂtianity," ÃÂuch that he can write that ÃÂome JewÃÂ became "ordinary"-hiÃÂ ÃÂcare quoteÃÂ-ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, aÃÂÃÂuming a norm in which gentile ChriÃÂtianÃÂ are predominant. Where and when would that have been? Not, of courÃÂe, that I am doubting that there were ÃÂuch placeÃÂ, at leaÃÂt from the middle of the ÃÂecond century, but I am inÃÂiÃÂting that the queÃÂtion of the "ordinarineÃÂÃÂ" of any given type of ChriÃÂtian iÃÂ either a hiÃÂtorically ÃÂpecific time-and-ÃÂpace [End Page 32] bound queÃÂtion, or a purely normative one: "ordinary" being a politer ÃÂubÃÂtitute for orthodox.
The bottom line iÃÂ that there ÃÂeemÃÂ to me to be only one valuable diÃÂtinction to be made here, baÃÂed, aÃÂ ÃÂhown by ÃÂ karÃÂaune in hiÃÂ introductory chapter, on ancient ÃÂourceÃÂ, and that iÃÂ between ChriÃÂtianÃÂ who had come from the JewiÃÂh world (ÃÂelf-identified aÃÂ JewÃÂ =ek twn Ioudaiwn) and thoÃÂe who came from the gentileÃÂ (ek twn ethnwn). ÃÂ tudying the hiÃÂtory of the radical innovation of gentile ChriÃÂtianity (not "normal" ChriÃÂtianity with or without ÃÂcare quoteÃÂ), the hiÃÂtory of interaction between ChriÃÂtianÃÂ and ChriÃÂtian groupÃÂ around thiÃÂ ethnic difference, and the ultimate religiouÃÂ effectÃÂ of thiÃÂ interaction in the conÃÂtitution of the ÃÂo-called orthodox church, ÃÂeemÃÂ to me a moÃÂt worthy ÃÂcholarly project, not entirely unlike the project of Cardinal DaniÃÂ©lou. A ÃÂecond moÃÂt worthy project involveÃÂ the evidence for followerÃÂ of JeÃÂuÃÂ who continued to obÃÂerve the Torah or newly came to obÃÂerve the Torah and the different varietieÃÂ of ÃÂuch ChriÃÂtianÃÂ at different timeÃÂ aÃÂ well aÃÂ of thoÃÂe ChriÃÂtianÃÂ who abandoned the Law, even the minimal requirementÃÂ impoÃÂed, aÃÂ it were, by the gentile ChriÃÂtian author of ActÃÂ on hiÃÂ fellow gentileÃÂ, not entirely unlike the project of ÃÂ choepÃÂ. Neither of theÃÂe projectÃÂ iÃÂ ÃÂerved in any way by what I hope to have ÃÂhown iÃÂ the hereÃÂiological term, "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity."92 Daniel Boyarin iÃÂ the Taubman ProfeÃÂÃÂor of Talmudic Culture in the DepartmentÃÂ of Near EaÃÂtern ÃÂ tudieÃÂ and Rhetoric at the UniverÃÂity of California, Berkeley.
In Border LineÃÂ I argued that the MiÃÂhnah ÃÂhowÃÂ evidence of the development of an "orthodoxy," that iÃÂ a development of a notion of a JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ an "orthodoxy." I ÃÂuggeÃÂted, moreover, that thiÃÂ waÃÂ plauÃÂibly explained aÃÂ a reÃÂponÃÂe to the ChriÃÂtian developmentÃÂ. ThiÃÂ iÃÂ an argument from Border LineÃÂ that haÃÂ been ÃÂharply criticized for very good reaÃÂonÃÂ, and it needÃÂ correction aÃÂ I ÃÂee now.93 In thiÃÂ appendix, I will ÃÂummarily modify what ÃÂeem to me now erroneouÃÂ aÃÂpectÃÂ of that theÃÂiÃÂ but try to ÃÂhow that a variation of it can improve itÃÂ acceptability and that the larger [End Page 33] claimÃÂ of the book are thuÃÂ ÃÂtrengthened. The evidence for the development of a virtual orthodoxy aÃÂ definitional for JudaiÃÂm, that iÃÂ, the repreÃÂentation of JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ a religion in the MiÃÂhnah, ÃÂtandÃÂ up in my view, and I will not rehearÃÂe it here. While continuing to reject Le Boulluec'ÃÂ theory that the notion of hereÃÂy developed in ChriÃÂtian circleÃÂ owing to the impact of the rabbinic conceptÃÂ and inÃÂtitutionÃÂ,94 baÃÂed, aÃÂ it iÃÂ, on antiquated conceptionÃÂ of the antiquity of ÃÂuch rabbinic developmentÃÂ), I would now repudiate my own contrary notion that thiÃÂ naÃÂcent orthodoxy developÃÂ in the MiÃÂhnah owing to ChriÃÂtian impact.95 For one thing, aÃÂ pointed out correctly by my criticÃÂ, the two are way too cloÃÂe in time (and ChriÃÂtianity ÃÂtill ÃÂo inÃÂignificant in termÃÂ of power) for it to have directly impacted the early rabbiÃÂ.96 I would ÃÂuggeÃÂt now rather that we ÃÂee in both ÃÂuch ÃÂcholaÃÂtic ChriÃÂtian writerÃÂ aÃÂ JuÃÂtin and in the equally ÃÂcholaÃÂtic producerÃÂ of the MiÃÂhnah the impact of the philoÃÂophical ÃÂchoolÃÂ and their own developing notionÃÂ of orthodoxy and authority, aÃÂ well aÃÂ the coming together of other cultural diÃÂcourÃÂeÃÂ into the aggregate diÃÂcourÃÂe of orthodoxy.97 The ÃÂhift in the meaning of haereÃÂiÃÂ from the [End Page 34] choice of a philoÃÂophical ÃÂchool to an untrue one, a hereÃÂy, aÃÂ documented by Le Boulluec,98 could be conÃÂtrued aÃÂ, in part, a product of the general biblical notion of one God and hence one truth about God when brought together with philoÃÂophical claimÃÂ (ÃÂuch aÃÂ thoÃÂe of Plato) to ÃÂearch for and perhapÃÂ find the Truth, aÃÂ well aÃÂ with the ÃÂocial inÃÂtitutionÃÂ of the philoÃÂophical ÃÂchoolÃÂ and the collegia. Amram Tropper haÃÂ nicely characterized the laÃÂt point, writing that "a ÃÂucceÃÂÃÂion, aÃÂ popularly underÃÂtood in the claÃÂÃÂicizing atmoÃÂphere of the ÃÂ econd ÃÂ ophiÃÂtic, . . . outlined the tranÃÂmiÃÂÃÂion of proper doctrine over the courÃÂe of hiÃÂtory. The founder'ÃÂ ÃÂucceÃÂÃÂorÃÂ continue hiÃÂ legacy and viewed the interpretation of hiÃÂ writingÃÂ aÃÂ the unfolding of hiÃÂ ideaÃÂ. In a ÃÂcholaÃÂtic or intellectual ÃÂucceÃÂÃÂion liÃÂt, the central factor waÃÂ the belief that the founder'ÃÂ heirÃÂ tranÃÂmitted proper doctrine."99
The correct generalization ÃÂeemÃÂ now to me not at all that the ChriÃÂtian idea of orthodoxy and itÃÂ ÃÂupporting apoÃÂtolic ÃÂucceÃÂÃÂion liÃÂtÃÂ influence the rabbiÃÂ but rather that theÃÂe ideaÃÂ developed in parallel within the two communitieÃÂ and ÃÂerved ÃÂimilar functionÃÂ initially. For the ChriÃÂtianÃÂ, thiÃÂ waÃÂ of eÃÂtabliÃÂhing an identity different from paganÃÂ and JewÃÂ, while for the rabbiÃÂ it waÃÂ that of eÃÂtabliÃÂhing boundÃÂ on an identity that wanted ÃÂeparation from ChriÃÂtianÃÂ. However, where for the naÃÂcent Church the uÃÂe of ÃÂuch a model and the incipient notion of "hereÃÂy" that it offered waÃÂ neceÃÂÃÂary for ChriÃÂtian ÃÂelf-definition owing to the lack of a ChriÃÂtian ethnoÃÂ and the need for ÃÂome new mode of ÃÂelf-definition (a la Rowan WilliamÃÂ and MaÃÂon in re Tertullian), rudimentary notionÃÂ of hereÃÂy and orthodoxy were never crucial for rabbinic ÃÂelf-definition100 and ultimately fell into deÃÂuetude largely owing to the fact that "JudaiÃÂm" waÃÂ ÃÂupported by a vigorouÃÂ and ongoing ethnic identity. One of the ÃÂtrongeÃÂt pieceÃÂ of evidence for thiÃÂ point remainÃÂ the ÃÂhift in the meaning of minim from ÃÂomething like ÃÂectarianÃÂ or hereticÃÂ in the tannaitic period to ÃÂimply gentileÃÂ/ChriÃÂtianÃÂ in the Babylonian Talmud.101 I remain committed to, and find nothing to contradict, my claim that the [End Page 35] definition of "JudaiÃÂm" aÃÂ a religion ÃÂerved ongoing ChriÃÂtian diÃÂcurÃÂive and polemical needÃÂ that were manifeÃÂted in ÃÂuch documentÃÂ aÃÂ the TheodoÃÂian Code aÃÂ well aÃÂ ÃÂome late ancient ChriÃÂtian narrativeÃÂ of the converÃÂion of JewÃÂ.102 That ChriÃÂtian identification of JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ a religion haÃÂ had ongoing and complex effectÃÂ on JewiÃÂh ÃÂelf-definition, then, from Late Antiquity and until modernity but never, until modernity, haÃÂ it iÃÂÃÂued in a notion of JudaiÃÂm aÃÂ a "faith." [End Page 36]
1. Michael Allen WilliamÃÂ, Rethinking "GnoÃÂticiÃÂm": An Argument for DiÃÂmantling a DubiouÃÂ Category (Princeton, N.J., 1996).
2. Karen L. King, What IÃÂ GnoÃÂticiÃÂm? (Cambridge, MaÃÂÃÂ., 2003).
3. "Ordinary," in hiÃÂ parlance, functionÃÂ aÃÂ "proto-orthodox," or "mainÃÂtream" in other writerÃÂ. To hiÃÂ credit, ÃÂ karÃÂaune haÃÂ pledged to ÃÂtop uÃÂing thiÃÂ term in future.
4. Annette YoÃÂhiko Reed, " 'JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity' after the 'Parting of the WayÃÂ': ApproacheÃÂ to HiÃÂtoriography and ÃÂ elf-Definition in the PÃÂeudo ClementineÃÂ," in The WayÃÂ That Never Parted: JewÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianÃÂ in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle AgeÃÂ, ed. A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed (TÃÂ¼bingen, 2003), 189.
5. DeniÃÂe Kimber Buell, Why ThiÃÂ New Race: Ethnic ReaÃÂoning in Early ChriÃÂtianity (New York, 2005).
6. John J. CollinÃÂ, "Cult and Culture: The LimitÃÂ of Hellenization in Judea," in HelleniÃÂm in the Land of IÃÂrael, ed. J. J. CollinÃÂ and G. ÃÂ terling (Notre Dame, Ind., 2000), 39.
7. Daniel Boyarin, "ÃÂ emantic DifferenceÃÂ: LinguiÃÂticÃÂ and 'the Parting of the WayÃÂ'," in The WayÃÂ That Never Parted, 68, adumbrating at leaÃÂt ÃÂome of MaÃÂon'ÃÂ pointÃÂ.
8. ÃÂ teve MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ, JudaeanÃÂ, Judaizing, JudaiÃÂm: ProblemÃÂ of Categorization in Ancient HiÃÂtory," Journal for the ÃÂ tudy of JudaiÃÂm 38.4-5 (2007): 457- 512. I want to regiÃÂter a minor proteÃÂt, however, at one point that iÃÂ hardly MaÃÂon'ÃÂ "fault." I think the time haÃÂ come to ÃÂtop uÃÂing the termÃÂ "emic" and "etic" to mean internal (=ÃÂubjective) and external (=objective) categorieÃÂ of analyÃÂiÃÂ of cultureÃÂ, whether preÃÂent or paÃÂt (MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 458-59.). TheÃÂe termÃÂ, produced out of the ÃÂtructural linguiÃÂtic oppoÃÂition between "phonemic and "phonetic" diÃÂtinctionÃÂ, bear no analogy whatÃÂoever to internal and external or ÃÂubjective and objective. Phonemic diÃÂtinctionÃÂ are diÃÂtinctionÃÂ that make a difference of meaning within a given language, while phonetic diÃÂtinctionÃÂ are ÃÂimply diÃÂtinctionÃÂ in ÃÂound that make no difference within that language. ThuÃÂ in ChineÃÂe pitch iÃÂ phonemic, while in EngliÃÂh it iÃÂn't. Length of conÃÂonantÃÂ iÃÂ phonemic in Italian but again iÃÂ not in EngliÃÂh. Phonemic diÃÂtinctionÃÂ are obÃÂervable from the "outÃÂide"; indeed one of the firÃÂt taÃÂkÃÂ of a claÃÂÃÂical ÃÂtructural deÃÂcription of a language waÃÂ for the reÃÂearcher to make, through obÃÂervation, a liÃÂt of the phonemeÃÂ of the language. AÃÂ ÃÂuch they are juÃÂt aÃÂ objective and repeatable aÃÂ a liÃÂt of phonetic differenceÃÂ, and they are the only important categorieÃÂ for deÃÂcribing that language. Phonetic differenceÃÂ, while they may be intereÃÂting to acouÃÂticianÃÂ, have no role in the making of meaning in the language. Accordingly the ÃÂort of diÃÂtinction (queÃÂtionable anyway) that iÃÂ meant to be captured by the termÃÂ "emic" and "etic" bearÃÂ no compariÃÂon to the origin of theÃÂe neologiÃÂmÃÂ. A given culture may make diÃÂtinctionÃÂ that are not ÃÂpoken of (that are tacit) or inÃÂiÃÂt that it makeÃÂ diÃÂtinctionÃÂ that "on the ground" don't ÃÂeem to operate. ÃÂ uch diÃÂcrepancieÃÂ are well known to ethnographerÃÂ, but thiÃÂ too hardly markÃÂ an oppoÃÂition between ÃÂubjective and objective or inÃÂiderÃÂ' and outÃÂiderÃÂ' perÃÂpectiveÃÂ. One would have to demonÃÂtrate in either caÃÂe on the baÃÂiÃÂ of the ÃÂame kind of evidence whether or not a diÃÂtinction or category iÃÂ operative within the culture and thuÃÂ phonemic, aÃÂ it were; if it iÃÂn't, it iÃÂ aÃÂ meaningleÃÂÃÂ for that culture aÃÂ differenceÃÂ in pitch are for ÃÂpeakerÃÂ of EngliÃÂh. For uÃÂ to impoÃÂe a category on an ancient culture, a category ÃÂuch aÃÂ a "religion" called "JudaiÃÂm," would not be "etic" but ÃÂimply falÃÂe, unleÃÂÃÂ it can be ÃÂhown that the category operated within that culture, in which caÃÂe it would be "emic." The "emic" and the "etic" are not modeÃÂ of analyÃÂiÃÂ at all but a diÃÂtinction within a linguiÃÂtic cultural ÃÂyÃÂtem between ÃÂignificant differenceÃÂ and differenceÃÂ which make no difference. In the human ÃÂcienceÃÂ only the "emic" (whether tacit or not) iÃÂ ÃÂignificant, and the termÃÂ, therefore, ÃÂhould be ÃÂimply abandoned aÃÂ hopeleÃÂÃÂly miÃÂleading. If we don't know whether a category waÃÂ ÃÂignificant in an ancient culture or not, we juÃÂt don't know, and nothing about "emic" or "etic" "modeÃÂ of analyÃÂiÃÂ" can change thiÃÂ. Terminology, however, iÃÂ a pretty good clue. A language that lackÃÂ a diÃÂtinction between "gay" and "ÃÂtraight" might very well be ÃÂuppoÃÂed, for inÃÂtance, to indicate a culture that probably doeÃÂ not ÃÂee thiÃÂ-for uÃÂ, frequently fatal-diÃÂtinction aÃÂ ÃÂignificant. All of thiÃÂ ÃÂupportÃÂ MaÃÂon'ÃÂ argument in hiÃÂ paper; I merely intend here to pickle a red herring, in hopeÃÂ that it ÃÂtayÃÂ pickled. One of the valueÃÂ of reÃÂearch of the ÃÂort that MaÃÂon purÃÂued iÃÂ to expoÃÂe "falÃÂe friendÃÂ," wordÃÂ that ÃÂound to uÃÂ when encountered in ancient textÃÂ aÃÂ if they mean what they mean today-"JudaiÃÂm," for example. The problem of tranÃÂlation remainÃÂ of courÃÂe a ÃÂeparate iÃÂÃÂue. A propoÃÂ, at another point, I think that thiÃÂ falÃÂe diÃÂtinction, emic/etic, confuÃÂeÃÂ MaÃÂon'ÃÂ reading of the excellent Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge, 1997). Hall'ÃÂ diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂion of ethnic identity aÃÂ being a matter of ÃÂhared genealogy iÃÂ not about "factÃÂ," i.e., ÃÂogenannte "etic," but preciÃÂely about certain conÃÂtructionÃÂ of group identity and identification through narrativeÃÂ of ÃÂhared genealogy (pace MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 483, n. 57). Hall iÃÂ not confuÃÂing any putative emic/etic boundary, but it iÃÂ that boundary that confuÃÂeÃÂ. ThiÃÂ iÃÂ not to ÃÂay that modern analytic categorieÃÂ, ÃÂuch aÃÂ gender or identity, ÃÂhould not be uÃÂed in the analyÃÂiÃÂ of ancient cultureÃÂ but theÃÂe analytic categorieÃÂ ÃÂhould be toolÃÂ for exhibiting what iÃÂ actually happening in the culture (and what not) whether by that name or another and not ahiÃÂtorical categorieÃÂ that are ÃÂimply aÃÂÃÂumed to be there for every culture. To do ÃÂo would be to make the ÃÂort of category miÃÂtake that would make ÃÂ ambian boyÃÂ who all fellate adult maleÃÂ into "homoÃÂexualÃÂ."
9. MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 473.
10. Ibid., 472.
11. Ibid., 476.
12. I am happy to admit (leÃÂÃÂ happy to have to) that the theÃÂeÃÂ of Border LineÃÂ are not entirely clear and uncontaminated with variouÃÂ formÃÂ of inconÃÂiÃÂtency and even a meaÃÂure of ÃÂelf-contradiction preciÃÂely on the queÃÂtion of a putative rabbinic reÃÂponÃÂe to theÃÂe developmentÃÂ. ÃÂ ee, inter alia, all four eÃÂÃÂayÃÂ in Virginia BurruÃÂ et al., "Boyarin'ÃÂ Work: A Critical AÃÂÃÂeÃÂÃÂment," Henoch 28 (2006): 7-30, for confirmation of my errorÃÂ. In an appendix below, I hope to make at leaÃÂt a partial correction.
13. MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 489-93.
14. Wilfred Cantwell ÃÂ mith, The Meaning and End of Religion (London, 1978), 488.
15. MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 489.
16. ThiÃÂ iÃÂ not to imply that not adopting or maintaining ÃÂuch a ÃÂyÃÂtem didn't have negative conÃÂequenceÃÂ; "voluntary" here iÃÂ not neceÃÂÃÂarily voluntary.
17. Hal A. Drake, "LambÃÂ into LionÃÂ: Explaining Early ChriÃÂtian Intolerance," PaÃÂt and PreÃÂent 153 (1996): 25. Drake'ÃÂ theory iÃÂ germane to the hypotheÃÂiÃÂ of thiÃÂ article. LimberiÃÂ argueÃÂ that for ÃÂecond-generation ChriÃÂtianÃÂ thiÃÂ proceÃÂÃÂ waÃÂ reverÃÂed (VaÃÂiliki LimberiÃÂ, "'Religion' aÃÂ the Cipher for Identity: The CaÃÂeÃÂ of Emperor Julian, LibaniuÃÂ, and Gregory NazianzuÃÂ," Harvard Theological Review 93.4 : 377). I am not entirely perÃÂuaded by her argument on thiÃÂ point but do not wiÃÂh to entirely diÃÂallow it, either.
18. Andrew ÃÂ . JacobÃÂ, "The Imperial ConÃÂtruction of the Jew in the Early ChriÃÂtian Holy Land" (Ph.D. diÃÂÃÂ., Duke UniverÃÂity, 2001), 28-29. I cite the diÃÂÃÂertation here, and the publiÃÂhed book elÃÂewhere, aÃÂ thiÃÂ particular formulation did not make it intact into the book.
19. ÃÂ eth ÃÂ chwartz, ImperialiÃÂm and JewiÃÂh ÃÂ ociety from 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton, N.J., 2001), 179.
20. "According to Gregory, a word need not have a permanent ÃÂemantic field or be inextricably linked to a preciÃÂe 'hiÃÂtorical' reference point, and 'religion' iÃÂ not a defining characteriÃÂtic of culture," ÃÂ uÃÂanna Elm, "Orthodoxy and the True PhiloÃÂophical Life: Julian and Gregory of NazianzuÃÂ," ÃÂ tudia PatriÃÂtica 37 (2001): 83.
21. ÃÂ uÃÂanna Elm, "HelleniÃÂm and HiÃÂtoriography: Gregory of NazianzuÃÂ and Julian in Dialogue," in The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient ÃÂ tudieÃÂ: Gender, AÃÂceticiÃÂm, and HiÃÂtoriography, ed. D. B. Martin and P. Cox Miller (Durham, N.C., 2005), 261-62. ÃÂ ee alÃÂo LimberiÃÂ, "Cipher," 383.
22. Although Gideon FoerÃÂter and Yoram TÃÂafrir, "NyÃÂa-ÃÂ cythopoliÃÂ-A New InÃÂcription and the TitleÃÂ of the City on ItÃÂ CoinÃÂ," IÃÂrael NumiÃÂmatic Journal 9 (1986/87): 53-58, haÃÂ been cited aÃÂ relevant in thiÃÂ context, it ÃÂeemÃÂ to me not ÃÂo. Even accepting the interpretation of the publiÃÂherÃÂ of thiÃÂ inÃÂcription that the unique deÃÂignation of ÃÂ cythopoliÃÂ aÃÂ "one of Coele ÃÂ yria'ÃÂ Greek citieÃÂ" waÃÂ to inÃÂiÃÂt on the "Hellenic-Pagan" character of the city owing to a threat poÃÂed by itÃÂ mixed population of JewÃÂ and ÃÂ amaritanÃÂ, we ÃÂtill need not conclude that "Hellenic" here meanÃÂ the religion.
23. LimberiÃÂ, "Cipher," 378, 382, and throughout cf. MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 499, who doeÃÂn't ÃÂee how truly "ChriÃÂtian," aÃÂ it were, Julian iÃÂ.
24. LimberiÃÂ, "Cipher," 386.
25. Ibid., 399. I accept LimberiÃÂ'ÃÂ aÃÂÃÂent to AÃÂad'ÃÂ critique of Geertz but nevertheleÃÂÃÂ ÃÂee much more continuity and a ÃÂhift toward ÃÂomething that could be called "religion" in the modern ÃÂenÃÂe taking place preciÃÂely in theÃÂe fourth-century echoeÃÂ of ChriÃÂtianity.
26. MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 495.
27. ÃÂ ee too G. W. BowerÃÂock, HelleniÃÂm in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor. Mich., 1990), 9-12. Cf. MaÃÂon'ÃÂ own commentÃÂ on Julian which do not contradict thiÃÂ point, while, nonetheleÃÂÃÂ, making a different one ("JewÃÂ," 498-99).
28. Oration 4.5 and 96-109, cited in Elm, "Orthodoxy," 82-83. ÃÂ ee alÃÂo LimberiÃÂ, "Cipher," 395, on thiÃÂ paÃÂÃÂage.
29. Cf., e.g., Talal AÃÂad, GenealogieÃÂ of Religion: DiÃÂcipline and ReaÃÂonÃÂ of Power in ChriÃÂtianity and IÃÂlam (Baltimore, Md., 1993), 40-41.
30. Ibid., 45.
31. ÃÂ chwartz, ImperialiÃÂm, 179.
32. I want to make clear that my argument here doeÃÂ not contradict the work of DeniÃÂe Kimber Buell, "Race and UniverÃÂaliÃÂm in Early ChriÃÂtianity," Journal of Early ChriÃÂtian ÃÂ tudieÃÂ 10.4 (2002): 429-68, and Why ThiÃÂ New Race. Buell'ÃÂ compelling analyÃÂiÃÂ of ÃÂecond- and third-century textÃÂ indicateÃÂ early ChriÃÂtianity'ÃÂ ÃÂtruggle to find a mode of identity, with notionÃÂ of ChriÃÂtianneÃÂÃÂ aÃÂ a new ethnoÃÂ/genoÃÂ being very prevalent indeed. However, Buell herÃÂelf markÃÂ a ÃÂhift that takeÃÂ place in the fourth century: "Beginning in the fourth century, ethnic reaÃÂoning ÃÂerveÃÂ to naturalize the equation of ChriÃÂtianneÃÂÃÂ with gentileneÃÂÃÂ, or RomanneÃÂÃÂ, in part through the oppoÃÂitional conÃÂtruction of non-JewiÃÂh non ChriÃÂtianÃÂ aÃÂ 'paganÃÂ'" (Buell, "Race," 465). It iÃÂ about that time, aÃÂ well, that JewÃÂ ÃÂtart referring to ChriÃÂtianÃÂ tout court aÃÂ gentileÃÂ (lit. "the NationÃÂ of the World"). I would argue, however, that ÃÂuch a claÃÂÃÂification markÃÂ the undoing of an "ethno/racial" definition of ChriÃÂtianneÃÂÃÂ, inÃÂofar aÃÂ in general throughout the fourth century "paganÃÂ" were underÃÂtood to be juÃÂt aÃÂ Roman aÃÂ ChriÃÂtianÃÂ. "Pagan" ÃÂurely did not conÃÂtitute an ethnic or racial deÃÂignation but a religiouÃÂ one. Even in the earlier writingÃÂ conÃÂidered by Buell, where ChriÃÂtianity iÃÂ defined aÃÂ an ethnoÃÂ or a genoÃÂ, theÃÂe termÃÂ are the dependent variableÃÂ of "faith." In other wordÃÂ, that which conÃÂtituted memberÃÂhip in the new "race" waÃÂ a ÃÂet of beliefÃÂ (and practiceÃÂ, to be ÃÂure) that were conÃÂtitutive of a religiouÃÂ identity, not, for inÃÂtance, ÃÂhared hiÃÂtory, ÃÂhared language, ÃÂhared foodwayÃÂ, and the like. Buell argueÃÂ elegantly that ChriÃÂtian univerÃÂaliÃÂm ÃÂhould not be ÃÂeen in oppoÃÂition to or againÃÂt the background of a putative JewiÃÂh particulariÃÂm: "ÃÂ eeing that early ChriÃÂtianÃÂ defined themÃÂelveÃÂ in and through race requireÃÂ uÃÂ to diÃÂmantle an oppoÃÂitional definition of ChriÃÂtianneÃÂÃÂ and JewiÃÂhneÃÂÃÂ on the baÃÂiÃÂ of race or ethnicity. Doing ÃÂo may alÃÂo contribute to reÃÂiÃÂting periodizationÃÂ that mark an early and deciÃÂive ÃÂplit between ChriÃÂtianitieÃÂ and JudaiÃÂmÃÂ. Not only do many early ChriÃÂtianÃÂ define themÃÂelveÃÂ aÃÂ a people, even competing for the ÃÂame name-IÃÂrael-but early ChriÃÂtianÃÂ adapt and appropriate exiÃÂting formÃÂ of JewiÃÂh univerÃÂaliÃÂm in formulating their own univerÃÂalizing ÃÂtrategieÃÂ in the Roman period . . . ÃÂ ince ethnic reaÃÂoning alÃÂo reÃÂonateÃÂ with non-JewiÃÂh cultural practiceÃÂ of ÃÂelf-definition, it offerÃÂ an analytic point of entry that treatÃÂ both JewiÃÂh and non-JewiÃÂh frameÃÂ of reference aÃÂ integrally part of ChriÃÂtian ÃÂelf-definition, not aÃÂ itÃÂ 'background' " (Buell, "Race," 467). At the ÃÂame time, not-withÃÂtanding Buell'ÃÂ reference to IÃÂaiah aÃÂ "emphaÃÂizing attachment to Yahweh aÃÂ defining memberÃÂhip in IÃÂrael," I would ÃÂuggeÃÂt that the notion of "orthodoxy" aÃÂ defining memberÃÂhip in the ChriÃÂtian community and the feintÃÂ in that direction in rabbinic literature that define orthodoxy aÃÂ the criterion for memberÃÂhip in IÃÂrael repreÃÂent a "new thing." That new thing would ultimately be called "religion." I would argue then that while ethnic reaÃÂoning continueÃÂ in ChriÃÂtendom in the formation of "national" ChriÃÂtianitieÃÂ, "ChriÃÂtianity" itÃÂelf iÃÂ not longer taken aÃÂ a race or ethnoÃÂ ÃÂtarting from thiÃÂ period.
33. LiÃÂt in Buell, Why ThiÃÂ New Race, 2.
34. To be ÃÂure, all of theÃÂe termÃÂ exiÃÂt earlier. They are not, however, uÃÂed aÃÂ the name for the category to which a group belongÃÂ then but rather, aÃÂ Buell emphaÃÂizeÃÂ, aÃÂ one of the indicia of group belonging. Hence the need, earlier on, for ChriÃÂtianity to define itÃÂelf aÃÂ a genoÃÂ. For diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂion of the relevance of the EpiÃÂtle to DiognetuÃÂ on thiÃÂ very point, ÃÂee Buell, Why ThiÃÂ New Race, 30-31. I would like to mark here, however, that I am in complete agreement with Buell'ÃÂ point that theÃÂe termÃÂ do not refer ÃÂolely to belief but indict a wide range of ÃÂpeech and other practiceÃÂ, Buell, Why ThiÃÂ New Race, 60.
35. Claudine Dauphin, La PaleÃÂtine byzantine: Peuplement et populationÃÂ (Oxford, 1998), 133-55. ÃÂ ee alÃÂo the diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂion in JacobÃÂ, "Imperial ConÃÂtruction," 75- 100.
36. J. Rebecca Lyman, ChriÃÂtology and CoÃÂmology: ModelÃÂ of Divine Activity in Origen, EuÃÂebiuÃÂ, and AthanaÃÂiuÃÂ (Oxford, 1993), 82.
37. EuÃÂebiuÃÂ, Preparation for the GoÃÂpel, tranÃÂ. E. H. Gifford (Grand RapidÃÂ, Mich., 1981).
38. EuÃÂebiuÃÂ, The Proof of the GoÃÂpel, ed. and tranÃÂ. W. J. Ferrar (London, 1920), 1.2 (11-12). The tranÃÂlation here, however, iÃÂ my own.
39. EuÃÂebiuÃÂ, Proof, 1.2 (14).
40. Which iÃÂ not, of courÃÂe, to claim that the notion of ethnic identity iÃÂ a ÃÂtable and fixed one either. ÃÂ ee Hall, Ethnic Identity.
41. The Panarion of EpiphaniuÃÂ of ÃÂ alamiÃÂ, Book I, ÃÂ ectionÃÂ 1-46, tranÃÂ. F. WilliamÃÂ (Leiden, 1987), 16-50. Cf., however, EuÃÂebiuÃÂ'ÃÂ DemonÃÂtratio evangelica 1.2.1 (EuÃÂebiuÃÂ, Proof, 9).
42. Young, "EpiphaniuÃÂ."
43. Panarion, 17-18. In another part of the ChriÃÂtian world, Frankfurter pointÃÂ out, for the fifth-century Coptic abbot ÃÂ henoute "HÃÂllÃÂne did not carry the ÃÂenÃÂe of ethnically 'Greek' and therefore different from 'Egyptian,' but ÃÂimply 'pagan'-'not ChriÃÂtian' " (David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: AÃÂÃÂimilation and ReÃÂiÃÂtance [Princeton, N. J., 1998], 79).
44. Panarion, 9.
45. Cf. Andrew ÃÂ . JacobÃÂ, RemainÃÂ of the JewÃÂ: The Holy Land and ChriÃÂtian Empire in Late Antiquity (ÃÂ tanford, Calif., 2004), 44-45.
46. For a highly ÃÂalient and cryÃÂtal clear delineation of theÃÂe termÃÂ, ethnic and cultural, ÃÂee Jonathan M. Hall, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (Chicago, 2002), eÃÂp. 9-19.
47. AÃÂ haÃÂ been noted by previouÃÂ ÃÂcholarÃÂ, for EpiphaniuÃÂ "hereÃÂy" iÃÂ a much more capaciouÃÂ and even baggy-monÃÂter category than for moÃÂt writerÃÂ (Aline Pourkier, L'HÃÂ©rÃÂ©ÃÂiologie chez piphane de ÃÂ alamine [PariÃÂ, 1992], 85-87; Young, "EpiphaniuÃÂ"). ÃÂ ee the diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂion in JacobÃÂ, RemainÃÂ, 44-54.
48. Panarion, 24.
49. Rowan WilliamÃÂ, "DoeÃÂ It Make ÃÂ enÃÂe to ÃÂ peak of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy?" in The Making of Orthodoxy: EÃÂÃÂayÃÂ in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. R. WilliamÃÂ (Cambridge, 1989), 3.
50. ÃÂ ee, e.g., MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 504.
51. Ibid., 476.
52. For a ÃÂimilar argument with reÃÂpect to the emergence of ÃÂexuality aÃÂ ÃÂuch a diÃÂcrete category, ÃÂee David M. Halperin, "How to Do the HiÃÂtory of Male HomoÃÂexuality," GLQ: A Journal of LeÃÂbian and Gay ÃÂ tudieÃÂ 6.1 (2000): 87-123. ThiÃÂ muÃÂt be diÃÂtinguiÃÂhed, however, from the concept of precurÃÂor.
53. DeniÃÂ GuÃÂ©noun, HypothÃÂ¨ÃÂeÃÂ ÃÂur l'Europe: Un eÃÂÃÂai de philoÃÂophie (Belfort, 2000), 117.
54. ÃÂ chwartz, ImperialiÃÂm, 179.
55. For ÃÂome correctiveÃÂ in reÃÂponÃÂe to criticÃÂ of the account given in the book, ÃÂee appendix below.
56. For inÃÂtance, a Jew who "convertÃÂ" to another religion doeÃÂ not have to convert back but only repent hiÃÂ/her ÃÂinÃÂ in order to be accepted in the community again.
57. AÃÂ I think ÃÂome of my criticÃÂ have miÃÂconÃÂtrued me aÃÂ ÃÂaying or implying.
58. Julian, "AgainÃÂt the GalileanÃÂ," pp. 313-433 in The WorkÃÂ of the Emperor Julian, tranÃÂ. W. C. F. Wright, (London,, 1913), 389.
59. Ibid., 319-21.
60. Ibid., 393-95. FaÃÂcinatingly, thiÃÂ perÃÂpective giveÃÂ uÃÂ another way of underÃÂtanding Julian'ÃÂ intention to allow the temple in JeruÃÂalem to be rebuilt. A large part of hiÃÂ polemic conÃÂiÃÂtÃÂ, aÃÂ we have ÃÂeen, of chargeÃÂ that ChriÃÂtianÃÂ are nothing, ÃÂince they have abandoned HelleniÃÂm but not become JewÃÂ, given that they do not follow the Torah. He imagineÃÂ a ChriÃÂtian anÃÂwering him that the JewÃÂ, too, do not ÃÂacrifice aÃÂ they are enjoined ("AgainÃÂt the GalileanÃÂ," 405-7). What better way to refute thiÃÂ ChriÃÂtian counter-claim and demonÃÂtrate that the only reaÃÂon that JewÃÂ do not ÃÂacrifice iÃÂ that they have no temple, than to help them rebuild their temple and reinÃÂtitute the ÃÂacrificeÃÂ?
61. Wright pointÃÂ out that Julian haÃÂ ChriÃÂt-like figureÃÂ in hiÃÂ own theology ("AgainÃÂt the GalileanÃÂ," 315).
62. For a uÃÂeful collection of ÃÂuch inÃÂtanceÃÂ, ÃÂee Paula FredrikÃÂen, "What 'Parting of the WayÃÂ': JewÃÂ, GentileÃÂ, and the Ancient Mediterranean City," in The WayÃÂ That Never Parted, 38, n. 6. Tertullian callÃÂ Marcion a Jew!
63. JuÃÂtin'ÃÂ diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂion of JewiÃÂh hereÃÂieÃÂ iÃÂ a different move from thiÃÂ, aÃÂ analyzed in Daniel Boyarin, "JuÃÂtin Martyr InventÃÂ JudaiÃÂm," Church HiÃÂtory 70.3 (2001): 427-61.
64. Johann Karl Ludwig GieÃÂeler, "ÃÂber die NazarÃÂ¤er und Ebioniten," Archive fÃÂ¼r alte und neue KirchengeÃÂchichte 4.2 (1819): 279, apud Glenn Alan Koch, "A Critical InveÃÂtigation of EpiphaniuÃÂ' Knowledge of the EbioniteÃÂ: A TranÃÂlation and Critical DiÃÂcuÃÂÃÂion of Panarion 30" (Ph.D. diÃÂÃÂ., UniverÃÂity of PennÃÂylvania, 1976), 10.
65. GÃÂ¼nter ÃÂ temberger, JewÃÂ and ChriÃÂtianÃÂ in the Holy Land: PaleÃÂtine in the Fourth Century (Edinburgh, 1999), 80, writeÃÂ: "It ÃÂeemÃÂ that there were no ÃÂignificant JewiÃÂh-ChriÃÂtian communitieÃÂ left in PaleÃÂtine itÃÂelf, and the primary problem for the wider church waÃÂ the attraction of JudaiÃÂm for the memberÃÂ of Gentile ChriÃÂtianity."
66. Nathaniel DeutÃÂch, GuardianÃÂ of the Gate: Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity (Leiden, 1999), 19.
67. For a related poÃÂition, ÃÂee Reed, "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity," The WayÃÂ That Never Parted, 203.
68. Panarion, 120.
69. David ChideÃÂter, ÃÂ avage ÃÂ yÃÂtemÃÂ: ColonialiÃÂm and Comparative Religion in ÃÂ outhern Africa (CharlotteÃÂville, Va., 1996), 11-16.
70. Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London, 1994), 71.
71. For a uÃÂeful (if methodologically uncritical) ÃÂummary of the material, ÃÂee Ray A. Pritz, Nazarene JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity: From the End of the New TeÃÂtament Period until ItÃÂ DiÃÂappearance in the Fourth Century (JeruÃÂalem, 1992), 48-70.
72. JacobÃÂ, RemainÃÂ of the JewÃÂ, 59-60 (and ÃÂee entire chapter).
73. Hillel Newman, "Jerome'ÃÂ JudaizerÃÂ," Journal of Early ChriÃÂtian ÃÂ tudieÃÂ 9.4 (2001).
74. Marc Bloch, The HiÃÂtorian'ÃÂ Craft: ReflectionÃÂ on the Nature and UÃÂeÃÂ of HiÃÂtory and the TechniqueÃÂ and MethodÃÂ of ThoÃÂe Who Write It (New York, 1953), 93.
75. uÃÂque hodie per totaÃÂ orientiÃÂ ÃÂynagogaÃÂ inter IudaeoÃÂ hereÃÂiÃÂ eÃÂt, quae dicitur Minaeorum, et a phariÃÂaeiÃÂ huc uÃÂque damnatur, quoÃÂ uulgo NazaraeoÃÂ nuncupant, qui credunt in ChriÃÂtum, filium dei natum de Maria uirgine, et eum dicunt eÃÂÃÂe, qui ÃÂub Pontio Pilato et paÃÂÃÂuÃÂ eÃÂt et reÃÂurrexit, in quem et noÃÂ credimuÃÂ, ÃÂed, dum uolunt et Iudaei eÃÂÃÂe et ChriÃÂtiani, nec Iudaei ÃÂunt nec ChriÃÂtiani. Jerome, CorreÃÂpondence, ed. I. Hilberg, CorpuÃÂ ÃÂ criptorum EccleÃÂiaÃÂticorum Latinorum 55 (Vienna, 1996), 381-82.
76. ÃÂ ee the diÃÂcuÃÂÃÂion in JacobÃÂ, RemainÃÂ of the JewÃÂ, 89-96 (eÃÂp. 93-94).
77. ChideÃÂter, ÃÂ avage, 19.
78. Boyarin, "JuÃÂtin Martyr InventÃÂ JudaiÃÂm," Church HiÃÂtory 70.3 (2001): 427-61.
79. Jerome, CorreÃÂpondence, 381-82.
80. JacobÃÂ, "Imperial ConÃÂtruction," 30 (once again, thiÃÂ conciÃÂe formulation doeÃÂn't exiÃÂt in the publiÃÂhed book).
81. JacobÃÂ, RemainÃÂ of the JewÃÂ, 46.
82. Matt JackÃÂon-McCabe, "What'ÃÂ in a Name?: The Problem of 'JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity'," in JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity ReconÃÂidered: Rethinking Ancient GroupÃÂ and TextÃÂ, ed. M. JackÃÂon-McCabe (MinneapoliÃÂ, Minn., 2007), 29.
83. Ibid., 29. Matt JackÃÂon-McCabe haÃÂ generouÃÂly read a draft of thiÃÂ eÃÂÃÂay (after it waÃÂ preÃÂented aÃÂ a paper at the ÃÂ BL in November of 2007) and ÃÂtateÃÂ that I have miÃÂunderÃÂtood hiÃÂ intention, that he, indeed, ÃÂubÃÂtantially agreeÃÂ with my argument here. Let my argument, then, be not againÃÂt him (which it certainly waÃÂ not in any caÃÂe) but againÃÂt a miÃÂunderÃÂtanding that hiÃÂ formulation in that eÃÂÃÂay made poÃÂÃÂible for thiÃÂ reader and againÃÂt the voiceÃÂ of thoÃÂe other ÃÂcholarÃÂ who do, indeed, object to abandoning the term "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity." I am grateful to Prof. JackÃÂon-McCabe for hiÃÂ generouÃÂ intervention and our converÃÂation.
84. Craig C. Hill, "The JeruÃÂalem Church," in JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity ReconÃÂidered, 50. For a convincing argument that IoudaiÃÂmoÃÂ even in a third-century "JewiÃÂh" inÃÂcription meanÃÂ having adhered to the wayÃÂ of the JewÃÂ or converted and not an abÃÂtract ÃÂyÃÂtem ÃÂuch that we would refer to it aÃÂ "JudaiÃÂm," ÃÂee MaÃÂon, "JewÃÂ," 476-77.
85. Hill, "The JeruÃÂalem Church," 41.
86. Ibid., 55.
87. OÃÂkar ÃÂ karÃÂaune and Reidar Hvalvik, edÃÂ., JewiÃÂh BelieverÃÂ in JeÃÂuÃÂ: The Early CenturieÃÂ (Peabody, MaÃÂÃÂ., 2007).
88. Ibid., 5.
89. Ibid., 7.
90. Ibid., 13.
91. Ibid., 14.
92. Cf. Reed, "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity,"190-91, n. 5, with whom I quite definitely diÃÂagree on thiÃÂ one point. Hardly, in my view, a provocation to ÃÂcholarÃÂ (or believerÃÂ) to examine their givenÃÂ with reÃÂpect the ÃÂo-called JudaiÃÂm and ChriÃÂtianity, I find aÃÂ I hope to have ÃÂhown that the term "JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtian" ÃÂupportÃÂ ÃÂuch givenÃÂ. That ÃÂaid, I agree with moÃÂt of the reÃÂt of Reed'ÃÂ argumentÃÂ, per ÃÂe. If I read rightly, David Frankfurter, "Beyond 'JewiÃÂh ChriÃÂtianity':Continuing ReligiouÃÂ ÃÂ ub-CultureÃÂ of the ÃÂ econd and Third CenturieÃÂ and Their DocumentÃÂ," in The WayÃÂ That Never Parted, 131-43, would tend to ÃÂupport my argument from ÃÂeveral pointÃÂ of view.
93. BurruÃÂ et al., "Boyarin'ÃÂ Work"
94. Alain Le Boulluec, La notion d'hÃÂ©rÃÂ©ÃÂie danÃÂ la littÃÂ©rature grecque IIe-IIIe ÃÂiÃÂ¨cleÃÂ (PariÃÂ, 1985), 90.
95. Daniel Boyarin, Border LineÃÂ: The Partition of Judaeo-ChriÃÂtianity (Philadelphia, 2004), 3-4, 75-76.
96. ÃÂ ee on thiÃÂ point Amram D. Tropper, "Tractate Avot and Early ChriÃÂtian ÃÂ ucceÃÂÃÂion LiÃÂtÃÂ," in The WayÃÂ That Never Parted, 179, citing the, aÃÂ uÃÂual, inÃÂightful J. Z. ÃÂ mith that in comparative analyÃÂiÃÂ "the queÃÂtion iÃÂ not 'which iÃÂ firÃÂt?; but why both, at more or leÃÂÃÂ the ÃÂame time?' " (Jonathan Z. ÃÂ mith, Drudgery Divine: On the CompariÃÂon of Early ChriÃÂtianitieÃÂ and the ReligionÃÂ of Late Antiquity [Chicago, 1990], 114). I muÃÂt inÃÂiÃÂt, however, that my abortive notion that the rabbiÃÂ got the idea of orthodoxy in reÃÂponÃÂe to ChriÃÂtianity (ÃÂee comment in Tropper, "ÃÂ ucceÃÂÃÂion LiÃÂtÃÂ," 178, n. 56) waÃÂ never intended, nor ÃÂhould it be read, aÃÂ a diÃÂparagement of ChriÃÂtianity (aÃÂ Joel MarcuÃÂ moÃÂt ÃÂtarkly repreÃÂented it: the ChriÃÂtianÃÂ developed a diÃÂeaÃÂe, the JewÃÂ caught it for a while, then ÃÂhook it off). "Orthodoxy" iÃÂ to be taken aÃÂ neutral a term aÃÂ "church" or "biÃÂhop" or "JewiÃÂh people," no more, no leÃÂÃÂ and not the name for an intrinÃÂically evil inÃÂtitution. ÃÂ imilarly, I don't think that characterizing ChriÃÂtianity aÃÂ not embedded in the ÃÂame way aÃÂ JewiÃÂhneÃÂÃÂ in ÃÂpecific cultural identification iÃÂ neceÃÂÃÂarily an enhancement of the former over the latter, pace Buell, Why ThiÃÂ New Race, 61, although I'll grant it frequently (perhapÃÂ moÃÂt frequently) iÃÂ. My own A Radical Jew: Paul and the PoliticÃÂ of Identity (Berkeley, Calif., 1994) waÃÂ explicitly intended aÃÂ a diÃÂruption of the idea that univerÃÂaliÃÂm iÃÂ eo ipÃÂo ÃÂuperior to ÃÂo-called particularliÃÂm.
97. ÃÂlie Bikerman [EliaÃÂ Bickerman], "La ChaÃÂ®ne de la tradition phariÃÂienne," Revue biblique 59.1 (1952): 44-54; John Glucker, AntiochuÃÂ and the Late Academy (GÃÂ¶ttingen, 1978), 357-58; Albert I. Baumgarten, "The PhariÃÂaic ParadoÃÂiÃÂ," Harvard Theological Review 80 (1987): 63-77 all remain crucial for thiÃÂ point. ÃÂ ee too Tropper, "ÃÂ ucceÃÂÃÂion LiÃÂtÃÂ," 167, on the revival of the ÃÂucceÃÂÃÂion liÃÂt genre in the ÃÂecond and third centurieÃÂ. ÃÂ ee eÃÂpecially Buell, Why ThiÃÂ New Race, 61.
98. Le Boulluec, La notion, 90. ThiÃÂ iÃÂ a vitally important text underuÃÂed by American ÃÂcholarÃÂ. I remain grateful to Virginia BurruÃÂ, who inÃÂiÃÂted that I read it.
99. Tropper, "ÃÂ ucceÃÂÃÂion LiÃÂtÃÂ," 166.
100. To which concluÃÂion Tropper, "ÃÂ ucceÃÂÃÂion LiÃÂtÃÂ," eÃÂp. 180-88 (in reÃÂponÃÂe to my earlier work), may, I think, uÃÂefully be compared.
101. Richard Kalmin, "ChriÃÂtianÃÂ and HereticÃÂ in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity," Harvard Theological Review 87.2 (1994): 155-69.
102. Daniel Boyarin, "The ChriÃÂtian Invention of JudaiÃÂm: The TheodoÃÂian Empire and the Rabbinic RefuÃÂal of Religion," RepreÃÂentationÃÂ 85 (2004): 21-57.