Thursday, July 14

ma thesis: jewish identity

jewish identity is a central topic in the professional jewish community, today. for example, research determines that connected jewish identity promotes sustainable affiliation, community participation, continuous jewish learning, and engaged jewish philanthropy.

however, identity was also extremely important during late antiquity. oppressed communities were denied full participation in imperial society. for example, subordinate groups were required to pay additional land, poll, or population taxes. in contrast, privileged communities were often exempt from special taxes and allowed the autonomy to administer local government.

this summer, i am working to complete my thesis in judaic studies: "what is jewish? jewish identity during the late second temple period". i will evaluate scholarship on judaism during late antiquity, and i will specifically focus on the development of guidelines and practice for conversion.

in the beginnings of jewishness (1999), shaye cohen evaluates the complex identity of jewish communities in late antiquity. he asks, "what is it that makes us us and them them?" in short, cohen concludes that "jewish identity in antiquity was elusive and uncertain."

"who" can be so difficult for scholars because boundaries were so fluid. daniel boyarin (2004) explains that religious authorities constructed increasingly strict private boundaries to limit open, dynamic public boundaries. the historical practice of judaism holds important insights into "what" individual jewish communities considered jewish. for example, can non jewish individuals become jewish?

historical study can also have important implications for our practice. for example, we often assume that orthodox tradition is the direct descendent of historical religion. yet, tradition changes dramatically over time. this does not invalidate any specific observance. neither orthodox judaism or reform judaism are undermined by historical diversity. however, research demonstrates that contemporary cultures have enormous influence on the social development of religion. for example, modern society has profoundly changed the interpretation and practice of judaism. today, there are 3 major streams of judaism: reform, conservative, and orthodox. but, modern judaism can be divided more precisely into humanist, reconstructionist, reform, conservative, traditional, modern orthodox, and orthodox judaisms.

this is not only true in the modern world. internal and external developments also led to substantial diversity during the late second temple period. scholars have identified more than 30 independent jewish groups during late antiquity! gabriele boccaccini (1999) explains that historical judaism is not a singular or "particular ideological system." in contrast, study identifies "many judaisms. . . active and in competition."

5 comments:

  1. devo,

    those are really good questions. i don't think it is presumptious, and like many big nerds, i think it's fun to talk about.

    i think you're asking three questions, if i understand. first, what is the connection between modern practice and historical/ancestral practice? second, can we even construct a connection between historical religion and modern practice? third, what are the implications of postmodernism?

    i think that i've included comments about modern practice, here, because they can help to ground us. in some ways, scholars do detail connections between modern and historical culture/practice. for example, how is american cultural influence similar to hellenism? or, in uncovering historical texts or archaeology, scholars might help place pieces together from modern insights, including language or tradition. (of course, it's always an imperfect construction.)

    many of the the specific things that led to independent jewish groups in antiquity were very different. one major difference is the temple cult. (by cult, i mean like organized ritual, not like weirdo crazies.) there were also significant splits because of the imperial/political system. shifting policital power led to shifting political connections. community leadership had a real important influence on interpretation and practice.

    however, there were also very significant differences in interpretation and belief . . and those reasons are very similar to the diversities in judaism today. (for example, geography also has really big implications in contemporary judaism.)

    there is no real history of authoritative oral law during late antiquity. many group _did_ interpret and practice jewish law differently. in other words, your kosher is not my kosher. or, your eschatology is not my eschatology.

    finally, for me, there is a big distinction between poststructuralist and postmodern thought. i know that this gets really wonky, but postmodern thought has much more severe consequences for traditional history. poststructuralism questions fixed ideas and true interpretations; however, there is still potential meaning. poststructuralism challenges any "final signified", or any final real correct answer. but, it's all about constructing, and _deconstructing_, possible connections and meanings.

    does that make sense? (there may be some things specifically about judaism during this period that i'd have to give background on to make it more clear. let me know if you'd like.)

    andrew

    ReplyDelete
  2. devo,

    i think fractured is a very sharp insight. it would be controversial, but i think it's a very important perspective. fractured suggests that there is not a unified, normative judaism. in contrast, there are only individual judaisms.

    there are definitely parallels to other traditions. for example, critical scholars are really uncovering a lot of interesting things into ealry christianity. for example, the early christian movements had very conflicting philosophies. how is this reconciled into one corporate christianity? is it reconciled?

    i do not believe that things are "meaningless". and opponents often feel like postmodern thought makes everything completely chaotic. but, i am more schooled in poststructuralism, and i might sound more biased against postmodernism at large than i might be against specific postmodern readings.

    there is a strong argument that judaism was less fractured during the middle ages. late antiquity was an _especially_ diverse time. but, you know, if scholars keep moving forward, it may be that we uncover very important diversities during that period. because, postmoderns do help us understand that it's all local, baby.

    ReplyDelete
  3. guys: you are so much smarter than me. I wish I could take a pill that would let me use words like poststructuralism without getting shooting pains in my medulla oblongata.

    I just thought I'd let you know that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. rico:

    i was watching tv yesterday and i learned that it's not smart to shoot for the heart. if you catch somebody in the heart, they still have 9 seconds to get you back. but, if you shoot for the medulla, your enemy dies instantly. i just found that out.

    (does that sound scary?)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi there.
    in this post you sad something about ' social development of religion '.
    Could you please help me to find some references about this matter?
    I want to know how develop religion especially from perspective of modernization theory.
    My E-MAIL is:
    a_abdolmohamadi@yahoo.com
    Thank you in advance.

    ReplyDelete