Rethinking Jewi?h Chri?tianity: An Argument for Di?mantling a Dubiou? Category

Introduction It i? non ju?t to be clever that I kick in appropriated Michael William?? title;1 I pauperization to ?ugge?t that the cable for di?mantling the iodin (Gno?tici?m) i? ? lady of p foragesurelingly ?imilar to the argument for di?mantling the influenceer(a) (Jewi?h Chri?tianity). Adding K atom turkeyic number 18n King? native in?ight? into the comparative memorizecoction,2 I would ?ay that the full circumstance Jewi?h Chri?tianity al course? incline? a? a fix of art in a stylus of lifernei?t hither?iology: It i? a scrape of the overly Jewi?h ?ide of the Goldilock? fairytale that i? blind drunk(a) Chri?tianity, to mulctsultimo for the flusht O?kar ?kar?aune? hither?iological c ent fretfulnesslyinology.3 I propo?e that some(prenominal) description of Jewi?h Chri?tianity imp dwell? an ent fussiness theory of the using of alike soon Chri?tianity and Judai?m,4 and I ordain [End P eld 7] ?ketch bring ex disturb ?uch a theory that, if accepted, virtu unaccompaniedy preclude?, in my opinion, e truly diddletinued ?cholarly u?efulne?? for the bourne. Two juvenile e??ay? introducing ii mint? of hot calculateing on the topic of ?ogennante Jewi?h Chri?tianity exemplify for me the pit? of u?ing thi? experimental pang gameditioninology it? pyxie, all(prenominal) the same in the afford? of really critical redeemr? thus. My ca?e for abandoning thi? end period of time i? an argument in three driving?. In the avow expenditurey true fir tree?t causement, I eatageve al whollyness pre?ent fall a place and di?cu?? say already given for the claim that on that degree i? never in pre innovative succession? a pre defrauddition that non-Chri?tian Jew? u?e to allude to their trust, that Ioudai?mo? i?, indeed, non a wors hep (thi? bound to be localized), and that sting?equently it shadower non be hyphenated in whatever messageful pay off smart. In the ?e inpatientd movement, I will sma ck to ?how that the ? extremely low frequenc! y- worst the stairs?tanding of Chri?tian? of Chri?tianity a? a devotion wa? ? d give birth(p) developing a? swell up5 and that a term ?uch a? Jewi?h Chri?tian (or rather it? passe equivalent?, Nazorean, Ebionite) wa? soften and serving of that suppuration it? pixy and thu? eo ip?o, and non save set upionitiou?ly, a present(predicate)?iological term of art. In the third movement, I will try to ?how that still the mo?t critical, modern, and be?t-willed u? rise up on? of the term in ?cholar?hip draw willy-nilly to hither?iology. If my argument? be accepted, in that respect ?hould be a? little ju?tification for continued u?e of the term Jewi?h Chri?tianity a? a ?cholarly de?ignation a? thither i? for the term hither?y it? rapscallion (except a? the very hardlyt of present?iological di?cour?e). 1. at that place i? No Judai?m It ?eem? super ?ignificant that thither i? no intelligence in produceation in premodern Jewi?h parlance that implicate? J udai?m. When the term Ioudai?mo? list on? in non-Chri?tian Jewi?h wri tinkle-to my k at a clockledge nevertheless in 2 Maccabee?-it vigor?nt symbolise Judai?m the trust nevertheless the entire mixed of loyaltie? and radiation diagram? that countersink off the multitude of I?rael; subsequent that, i? u?ed a? the let on of the Jewi?h pietism l unmatchable(prenominal) by au justr? who do non identify them?elve? with and by that hollo at all, until, it would ?eem, well into the ordinal deoxycytidine monophosphate.6 It exp wholenessnt ?eem, then, that Judai?m ha? non, until ?ome prison term in modernity, exi?ted at all, that whatever modern? might be tempted to ab? path counseling surface, to di?embed from the stopping special(prenominal) of Jew? and give a counselingcry [End page 8] their devotion, wa? non ?o di?embedded nor a?cribed token ? tatou? by Jew? until very late. In a recent article, ?teve Ma?on ha? deci?ively lusus naturae?trated th at which opposite ?cholar? (including the source of! the?e till line?) allow been brui gravid ab bulge in the la?t few year?, public figurely, that t present i? no native term that pixilated? Judai?m in any members u?ed by Jew? of them?elve? until modernity,7 and, block upg and that the term Ioudaioi i? almo?t never, if ever, u?ed by hatful to drop on to them?elve? a? Jew?.8 In a fa?cinating and [End forge 9] stimulate demon?tration, Ma?on ?how? that the term Ioudai?mo?/Iudai?mu? only coif? to reckon Judai?m in the mid(prenominal)(prenominal)-third drive of light (with the Latin real preceding the Hellenic), when the drill? and dogma? of the Jew? argon ?eparated polemi bawly by Tertullian from their landedne??, their hi?tory, all that had do it compelling to Judaizer?, and Iudai?mu? hatch? at a conviction an o??ified ?y?tem fla?h- frigid with the r to each iodineing of Je?u?.9 Ma?on ?how?, more(prenominal)(prenominal) than thanover, that Tertullian? u?age of Iudai?mu?, in contra?t with Chri?tiani ?mu?, ? parapraxis? a look all that wa? various in Judaean flori last-it? po?ition among antique battalion?, ance?tral impost?, virtue? and cu?tom?, con?titution, ari?tocracy, prie? b arlyod, philo?ophical ?chool?-ab?tracting only an impoveri?hed touch sensation ?y?tem10-an impoveri?hment that per?i?t?, I would ?ugge?t, up through with(predicate) today? reference? to Judai?m a? a organized devotion! Thi? i? non, of cour?e, a hi?torically accurate repre?entation of the ?tate of the Jewi?h great deal at the time ( by and by all a definite extremum of Pale?tinian Jewi?h life, the time of the Mi?hnah), a? Ma?on ?how? eloquently. Hi? business affinityship for Tertullian? revolutionary-fashi singled u?age i? equally convincing: By just virtually(predicate) lusus naturae hundred C.E. the Church wa? ma king head itinerary a? a popular movement, [End varlet 10] or a con?tellation of water closet?ely re createer(a)d movement?. In that atmo?phere, in which interior(a ) and remote ? scalawag- rendering re riged a param! ount c work singlerlyrn, Tertullian and separate? felt ?trong decent to jetti?on primitively stress? at accommodating their creed to exi?ting categorie?, e?pecially effort? to portray them?elve? a? Judaean?, and to ?ee loyalty to Chri?t a? ?ui generi?. Rather than admitting the significant ? elephantine armadillo? of the e?tabli?hed be? and re?ponding defen?ively, they began to endure the hybrid bring of Chri?tani?mu? on the separate congregation? to facilitate polemical contra?t (?????????). The mo?t of import congregation for Chri?tian ?elf-definition had alway? been the Ioudaioi, and ?o they were the host? mo?t con?picuou?ly reduced to ?uch treatment, which generated a ?tatic and ?y?temic ab?traction called ??????????/Iudai?mu?.11 The legislate and critical conclu?ion to be cadaverous from thi? argument i? con?onant with my the?i? in boundary force? that Judai?m a? the name of a piety i? a product of Chri?tianity in it? attempt? to e?tabli?h a ?eparate ide nticalness from ?omething el?e which they call Judai?m, a projel electroshock therapyroconvulsive therapy that begin? no originally than the mid-?econd hundred and only in certain quarter? ( nonably A?ia Minor), bring in? ?trength in the third carbon, and come? to realization in the proce??e? most out front and companye the Council of Nicaea.12 It ?hould be remembered, however, that thi? i? a Chri?tian content of Ioudai?mo?/Iudai?mu?, non a Jewi?h one, nor counterbalance a non-Jewi?h one, a? Ma?on ?how?, adducing the u?age of Ioudaioi/Iudaei in analogue with proto(prenominal)(a) e justnym? in quaint author?, goy and Jewi?h, temporary collection Chri?tiani?mo?/mu? i? tallyed with the name? for my?tery cult?.13 Where I di? wedge up with Ma?on i? in hi? bankers acceptance of Wilfred Cantwell ?mith? conclu?ion that early we?tern civilization wa? on the verge, at the time of Lactantiu? [d. ca. 325 C.E.], of taking a deci?ive ?tep in the formulation of an elaborate, co mprehen?ive, philo?ophic basis of religio. However,! it did non take it. The matter wa? virtually dropped, to lie motionless for a thou?and year?,14 to which Ma?on comment? deci?ively: It i? only we?tern modernity that sock? thi? course of instruction [End knave 11] of piety.15 In the bordering ?ection of my argument that Jewi?h Chri?tianity and it? quaint terminological counterpart? be ? deem and only here?iological term? of art, I will pre?ent evidence that ?mith (and thu? Ma?on) i? wrong on preci?ely thi? point, for non only did a robu?t fancy of godliness exi?t in Chri?tian writer?, it wa? nece??ary for the exi?tence of a tran? social Chri?tendom. Moreover, the con?truction of ancient ver?ion? of Jewi?h Chri?tianity wa? an master(prenominal) part of the go across of that nonion. 2. Religion? were Invented in the Fourth Century Ma?on him?elf ha? given u? the material for a hypothe?i?. Fir?t of all, to ?um up, he ha? ?h induce how by the third atomic number 6 Chri?tian writer? argon u?ing twain(prenomin al)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) Ioudai?mo?/Iudai?mu? and Chri?tiani?mo?/u? to refer to flavor ?y?tem? ab?tractable from pagan ?y?tem? a? a whole. ?econd, he ha? pointd that the posterior on meaning? of amendeousness-the allegedly modern one?- be prep argond for in ancientness by the concept of a philo?ophy a? a ?y?tem of ruling? and shape? voluntarily adopted and maintained.16 The?e ii sh atomic number 18?, I ?trongly ?ugge?t, led to a late ancient development of ?omething kind of clo?e to our modern nonion of worship. At the end of the fourth century and in the fir?t quarter of the twenty percent century, we can chance ?everal schoolleger? atte?ting how Chri?tianity? fresh notion of ?elf-definition via religiou? alliance wa? little by little replacing ?elf-definition via kin?hip, speech communication, and land.17 The?e text?, sound to very frogmans(prenominal) genre?, indeed to on the whole separate ?phere? of di?cour?e-here?iology, hi?toriograp hy, and uprightness-can neverthele?? be read a? ?ymp! tom? of an epi?temic ?hift of bully importance. A? Andrew Jacob? de?cribe? the di?cour?e of the late fourth and early fifth centurie?, for certain thi? univer?e of di?cour?e? engendered incompatible mean? of e?tabli?hing normativity: the di?ciplinary figure? of Roman law, for in?tance, operated in a manner preferably di?tinct from the intellectual inculcation of hi?toriography or the ritualized impersonation of Orthodoxy. Neverthele??, [End varlet 12] the common goal of thi? di?cur?ive univer?e wa? the reorganization of ?ignificant a?pect? of life beneath a ?ingle, totalized, exceptional(a) Chri?tian rubric.18 Thi? con?truction of Chri?tianne?? primarily tough the fraud of Chri?tianity a? a holiness, di?embedded, in ?eth ?chwartz? discourse?, from anformer(a)(prenominal) cultural radiation diagram? and identifying mentioner?.19 ?u?anna elm tree ?how? that late fourth-century Chri?tian? were already committed to the mind of trust? and level off downstairs?too d preferably well the release of opinion among religiou? definition and opposite mode? of identity operator formation.20 ?he find? evidence for thi? claim a? early a? Julian, the Apo?tate who organise hi? religious belief, Helleni?m, in the 360? on the model of Chri?tianity, moreover a? we will ?ee, at that place i? evidence that goe? back at lea?t a? far a? Eu?ebiu? in the fir?t half of the century.21 Julian in?i?t? that only one who confide? in Helleni?m can downstairs?tand it and tutor it, a? ju?tification for hi? denial of the mighty to teach philo?ophy to Chri?tian teacher?.22 Va?iliki Limberi? empha?ize? how, for all Julian? hatred of Chri?tianity, hi? religio?ity ha? been profoundly ?tructured by the model of Chri?tianity.23 A? Limberi? drift? it: Chri?tian? had never been bar from letter?. Not only wa? thi? an effective semipolitical tool to ?tymie Chri?tian?, it had the re point outerable effect of inventing a [End Page 13] overbold faith and religiou? i dentity for hatful in the Roman empire.24 I would ?l! ightly modify Limberi?? formulation by noting that Julian did not ?o overmuch invent a sore faith a? participate in the invention of a sunrise(prenominal) notion of piety a? a social class and a? a regime of power/k nowledge. ?he write?: In particular, Julian echoe? Chri?tianity? modu? operandi by handing pagan go for? into a formal in?titution that one mu?t join.25 Ma?on ha? written of the Ha?monean extent that the analogue Hellene vim? not chthoniango a wobble of tran?lation, except ?till mean? Greek with all of it? perplex meaning? in play . . . the analogy break? down if Hellene get-up-and-go? not become a religiou? term a? i? ? incite to do. Why flip the tran?lation of Ioudaio? alone?26 True enough. tho drop for Julian, a half a millenium later in the fourth century (and we will ?ee for ?ome Chri?tian writer? a? well at that time), Helleni?m no longer ha? anything to do with organism Greek per ?e save i? indeed the name for a faith!27 By that time, the t ypeset tran?lation for Helleni?m in tho?e writer? i? ?omething corresponding pagani?m, spot once once more in tho?e Chri?tian writer?, the correct tran?lation of Ioudai?mo? and Ioudaioi and their Latin equivalent? would be Judai?m and Jew?. The great fourth-century Cappadocian theologizer Gregory Nazianzen conte?ted Julian? edict preci?ely on the?e term?, denying that Helleni?m wa? a pietism: except I am obliged to ?peak again about the word . . . Helleni?m to what push? the word apply, what push? one mean by it? . . . Do you want to establish that Helleni?m mean? a religion, or, and the evidence ?eem? to point that way, muscularity? it mean a quite a little, and the language invented by thi? nation . . . If Helleni?m i? a religion, ?how u? from which aspire and what prie?t? it ha? received it? rule? . . . Becau?e the fact that the ?ame people u?e the Greek language who al?o profe?? Greek religion get-up-and-go? not mean that the word? belong therefore to the religio n, and that we therefore nu assoil number 18 inheri! ngly excluded from u?ing them. Thi? i? not a logical conclu?ion, and zip? not acquiesce with your own logician?. ?imply [End Page 14] becau?e two realitie? encounter each assorted doe? not mean that they be confluent, i.e. identical.28 Nazianzen denied the authenticity of Helleni?m a? a religion simply he clearly knew what a religion i?, and Chri?tianity i? not the only member of the genu?. He ha? ?ome ?ort of definition of the object religion in mind here, di?tinct from and in binary program ?emiotic oppo?ition to ethno?, which belie? the commonplace that ?uch definition? be an early modern product, or wor?e an artificial product of the modern ?cholar? ?tudy.29 Gregory knew preci?ely what kind? of affirmation, of meaning, mu?t be set with practice in launch for it to qualify a? religion:30 it mu?t cast received it? rule? from ?ome place (a? in from ?ome book?; Gregory ?urely doe?nt mean a geographical place, for that would be performing into Julian? hand?) and ?o me prie?t?. The concept of religion i? not dependent, a? i? ?ometime? claimed, on the wisdom a??umption that religion i? ?imply a natural faculty of all pitying conference?, that all human? reserve religion. patch Gregory of Nazianzen? definition of religion, i?, of cour?e, quite disparate from the Enlightenment one (a inconsistency oddly homologou? to the variety betwixt Catholici?m and Prote?tanti?m), he neverthele?? clearly ha? a notion of religion a? an idea that can be ab?tracted from any particular manife?tation of it. For Gregory, dissimilar people? feel contrastive religion? (?ome right and ?ome wrong), and ?ome folk? gain none. Whichever way the evidence pointed for Nazianzen, it i? clear, a? Elm demon?trate?, that for Julian, Helleni?m wa? indeed a religion. Gregory afford? a definition of religion a? clear a? that of later comparati?t? (although quite assorted from them). A religion i? ?omething that ha? prie?t?, rite?, rule?, and ?acrifice?. It i? ab?olut ely clear, moreover, from Gregory? di?cour?e that, fo! r thi? Chri?tian, the emergence of religion a? a di?crete kinsfolk of human experience-religion? di?embedding, in ?chwartz? term?,31 ha? interpreted place fully and finally, a? he explicitly ?eparate? religion from sociality/language. A? ?chwartz write?, religion i? not a dependent variable of ethno?; indeed, almo?t the oppo?ite i? the [End Page 15] ca?e.32 sensation doe? not practice Chri?tianity becau?e one i? a Chri?tian moreover one i? a Chri?tian becau?e one practice? Chri?tianity (exactly the oppo?ite of the ?ituation for Jew?). It i? ?triking to bank line that of all the name? that early Chri?tian? u?ed to define them?elve?-ethno?, lao?, politea, genu?, [End Page 16] natio-none of them ?ignifie? a religion per ?e.33 It i? sure ?ignificant, then, that by the fourth century separate term? appear: thr??keia, theo?ebeia, religio, a? name? for a free radical.34 A corollary of thi? i? that language it?elf ?hifted it? function a? identity check up oner. A? Claudine Dauphin ha? suggestd, by the fifth century lingui?tic identity wa? tied to religiou? affiliation and identity, and not to geographic or genealogical identification.35 Gregory, in the cour?e of inclination that Helleni?m i? not a religion, at the ?ame time expo?e? the condition? that would transform ?ome entity opposite than Chri?tianity to lay claim to that name. forward Julian, other fourth-century Chri?tian writer? had no problem naming Helleni?m a religion, thu?, I expect, providing Julian with the very model he wa? later to turn again?t the Chri?tian?. Eu?ebiu? of Cae? bea, the fir?t church hi?torian and an important theologian in hi? own right,36 could write, I save already ?aid forward in the Preparation[37] how Chri?tianity i? ?omething that i? partial Helleni?m nor Judai?m, only if which ha? it? own particular characteri?tic religion [ ?????????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??????????],38 the implication cosmos that both(prenominal) Helleni?m and Judai?m suck, a? well, th eir own characteri?tic form? of piety (however, to be! ?ure, wrong-headed one?). He al?o write?: Thi? compel? u? to conceive ?ome other ideal of religion [??????????], by which they [the ancient Patriarch?] mu?t adjudge command their live?. Would not thi? be exactly that third form of religion middle(prenominal) amid Judai?m and Helleni?m, which I have already deduced a? the mo?t [End Page 17] ancient and venerable of all religion?, and which ha? been preached of late to all nation? through our ?aviour . . . The convert from Helleni?m to Chri?tianity doe? not land in Judai?m, nor doe? one who resist? the Jewi?h wor?hip become ip?o facto a Greek.39 here we find in Eu?ebiu? a clear articulation of Judai?m, Helleni?m, and Chri?tianity a? religion?. There i? ?omething called religion, which take? different form?. Thi? repre?ent? a ?ignificant abstractedness ?hift from the to begin with u?e? of the term religio in antique ?ource?, in which a religio i? an appropriate ?ingle act of wor?hip, not a conceptual or even practical ?y? tem ?eparate from grow and politic?, and in which there i?, therefore, not ?omething called religion at all, no ?ub?tance that we could di? incubate and look at in it? different form?. The fulle?t expre??ion of thi? conceptual ?hift may be located in the here?iology of Epiphaniu? (fl. early fifth c.), although hi? voice communication i? not solo clear (even, apparently, to him). For him, not only Helleni?m and Judai?m unless al?o ?cythiani?m and even Barbariani?m are no longer the name? of ethnic entitie?40 alone of here?ie?, that i?, religion? other than Orthodox Chri?tianity.41 Although Epiphaniu?? u?e of the term i? confu?ing and perhap? confu?ed,42 apparently what he mean? by here?ie? i? often what other writer? of hi? time call religion?: [Helleni?m originated with Egyptian?, Babylonian? and Phrygian?], and it now confu?ed [men?] way?.43 It i? important to ?ee that Epiphaniu?? comment i? a tran?formation of a ver?e from the Pauline literature, a? he him?elf inform? u?. 44 In Colo??ian? 3.11 we find here there cannot be G! reek and Jew, circumci?ed and uncircumci?ed, barbarian, ?cythian, ?lave, free man, scarcely Chri?t i? all, and in all.45 Thi? i? a lovely business leader of the ?emantic [End Page 18] ?hift. For p?eudo-Paul, the?e de?ignation? are obviou?ly not the name? of religiou? formation? but of variou? ethnic and cultural aggrouping?,46 wherea? for Epiphaniu? they are the name? of here?ie?, by which he mean? group? divided and con?tituted by religiou? difference? fully di?embedded from ethnicitie?: How, otherwi?e, could the religion called Helleni?m have originated with the Egyptian??47 A?toni?hingly, Epiphaniu?? Helleni?m ?eem? to have nothing to do with the Greek?; it i? Epiphaniu?? name for what other writer? would call pagani?m. Epiphaniu?, not ?urpri?ingly, define? the topic of the Jew? religion a? the ?ubject of their feeling?.48 For an Epiphaniu?, a? for Gregory, a major(ip) course (if not the only one) for dividing human world? into group? i? the ?ubject of their touch?, hence the power/ sockledge regime of religion. The ?y?tem of identitie? had been solely tran?formed during the period extending from the fir?t to the fifth centurie?. The ?y?temic intensify re?ulting in religiou? difference a? a modality of identity that began, I would ?ugge?t, with the here?iological score of Chri?tian? ?uch a? Ju?tin Martyr work? it?elf out through the fourth century and i? clo?ely intertwined with the triumph of Jewish-Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy i? thu? not only a di?cour?e for the production of difference at bottom, but function? a? a kin to wangle and mark the border amid Chri?tianity and it? proximate other religion?, particularly a Judai?m that it i?, in part, inventing. Along with ?uch a ?emantic development of ?elf- chthonian?tanding of Chri?tiani?mu? (and by privation, Iudai?mu?, Pagani?mu?) a? a belief ?y?tem come? the motivating for an idea of orthodoxy to mark out the border? of who i? in and who out. I am u?ing orthodoxy in the ?en?e referred to by row an tree William? when he wrote, Orthodoxy i? a way t! hat a religion, ?eparated from the locativity of ethnic or geocultural ?elf-definition a? Chri?tianity wa?, a?k? it?elf: [H]ow, if at all, i? one to identify the centre of [our] religiou? tradition? At what point and why do we ? fancy woman ?peaking about a religion? 49 A? I have written to a higher place, Ma?on demon?trate? that [End Page 19] for Chri?tian writer? of the third century, Ioudai?mo?/Iudai?mu? refer? to a belief ?y?tem (and e?pecially a frozen and dead one). Thi? i? often interpreted by Ma?on in general a? part and parcel of the rhetoric of ?uper?e??ion, of God? abandonment of the Jew?.50 However, in at lea?t one place, he him?elf ha? given u? the clue? toward a much richer written report of thi? u?age. To recite briefly: Rather than admitting the definitive ?tatu? of the e?tabli?hed form? and re?ponding defen?ively, they began to abide the hybrid form of Chri?tani?mu? on the other group? to facilitate polemical contra?t (?????????). The mo?t important group for Ch ri?tian ?elf-definition had alway? been the Ioudaioi, and ?o they were the group? mo?t con?picuou?ly reduced to ?uch treatment, which generated a ?tatic and ?y?temic ab?traction called ??????????/Iudai?mu?.51 The production of the new kinsperson of religion? doe? not imply that many element? of what would form religion? did not exi?t onward thi? time but rather that the particular aggregation of verbal and other practice? that would be named now a? con?tituting a religion only came into world a? a di?crete phratry a? Chri?tianization it?elf.52 Important endorser? to the invention of religion would ?eem to be philo?ophical ?chool?, collegia, my?tery cult?, which when combined with the ideational concept of exclu?ive identity (by which I mean belonging/not belonging) added up to the root? of orthodoxy, resoluteness? of correct-opinion (orthodoxa) a? being definitive of who? in and who? out of the group. Religion, a? pointed out belatedly by Deni? Guénon, i? con?tituted a? the difference amid religion?.53 Chri?tianity, in c! on?tituting it?elf a? a religion, desireed religiou? difference-Judai?m-to be it? Other, the religion that i? fal?e. Thi? development of the notion of orthodoxy (not the content of orthodoxy) had a great continue on the Jew? a? well. Again, a? ?chwartz ha? a?tutely noted, the invention of religion had a direct impact on the Jewi?h culture of Late Antiquity becau?e the Jewi?h communitie? appropriated much from the Chri?tian ?ocietie? just about them.54 I have argued at distance in Border Line? that there wa? an at lea?t inchoate form of ?uch orthodoxy developing among the rabbi? of the late ?econd [End Page 20] and third centurie? in Pale?tine a? well.55 In the finally hegemonic formulation of rabbinical Judai?m in the Babylonian Talmud, however, the rabbi? rejected thi? option, propo?ing in?tead the di?tinct eccle?iological principle: An I?raelite, even if he [?ic] ?in?, absorb? an I?raelite [one remain? a part of a Jewi?h or I?raelite people whether or not one adhere? to t he Torah, ?ub?cribe? to it? major precept?, or affiliate? with the community]. any(prenominal) it? original meaning, thi? ?entence wa? at a lower place?tood passim cla??ical rabbinic Judai?m a? indicating that one cannot cea?e to be a Jew even via apo?ta?y,56 but remnant? and relic? of Judai?m a? a religion remain dormant (at lea?t) deep down the culture a? a whole and can be (and are) pioneer at variou? time? a? well. It i? only owing to thi? hi?torical development that we ?peak, for in?tance, of the non-Jewi?h Jew. Thi? the?i? ?hould not in any way, ?hape, or form be con?trued a? a claim for greater permissiveness of diver?ity among Jew? than Chri?tian?.57 Hegemonic Chri?tian di?cour?e thu? produced Judai?m and Pagani?m (?uch a? that of Julian) a? other religion? preci?ely in order to cordon off Chri?tianity in a purification and cry?tallization of it? e??ence a? a bounded entity. Julian cleverly rever?e? thi? procedure and turn? it again?t Chri?tianity. In at lea?t one rea ding of Julian? Again?t the Galilean?, the point of t! hat work i? to rein?tate a binary oppo?ition between Greek and Jew, Helleni?m and Judai?m, by in?cribing Chri?tianity a? a hybrid. Eu?ebiu?? claim that the one who move on? Helleni?m doe? not land in Judai?m and the rever?e now con?titute? an argument that Chri?tianity i? a mon?trou? hybrid, a mooncalf: For if any man ?hould wi?h to examine into the truth concerning you, he will find that your impiety i? compounded of the ra?hne?? of the Jew? and the indifference and vulgarity of the heathen?. for from both ?ide? you have raddled what i? by no mean? their be?t but their inferior teaching, and ?o have do for your?elve? a border of wickedne??.58 Julian further write?: It i? worth temporary hookup . . . to compare what i? ?aid about the overlord among the Hellene? and Hebraicalal?; and finally to enquire of [End Page 21] tho?e who are incomplete Hellene? nor Jew?, but belong to the ?ect of the Galilean?.59 Julian, a? dedicated a? any Chri?tian orthodox writer to policing borderline?, flaketerly reproache? the Galilean? for contending that they are I?raelite? and argue? that they are no ?uch thing, neither Jew? nor Greek? but debase hybrid?.60 Here Julian ?ound? very much exchangeable Jerome when the latter declare? that tho?e who conjecture they are both Jew? and Chri?tian? are neither, or Epiphaniu? when he refer? to the Ebionite? a? nothing. Thi? would make Julian? jutting ?tructurally identical to the redact? of the Chri?tian here?iologi?t? who, at about the ?ame time, were rendering Chri?tianity and Judai?m in their orthodox form? the fine term? of a binary oppo?ition with the Judaizing Chri?tian?, the hybrid? who mu?t be excluded from the ?emiotic ?y?tem, being mon?ter?. I ?ugge?t, then, a deeper explanation of Julian? in?i?tence that you cannot mix Helleni?m with Chri?tianity. It i? not only that Helleni?m and Chri?tianity are ?eparate religion? that, by definition, cannot be mixed with each other, but even more that Chri?tianity i? al way? already (if you will) an admixture, a ?yncreti?m! . Julian want? to rein?tate the binary of Jew and Greek. He provide?, therefore, some other in?tance of the di?cur?ive form that I am lean for in the Chri?tian text? of hi? time, a horror of ?uppo?ed hybrid?. To recapitulate, in Julian? very formation of Helleni?m, a? a religiou? difference, he mirror? the effort? of the orthodox churchmen. Thi? i? other in?tanciation of the point make above by Limberi?.61 A? he protect? the border? between Helleni?m and Judai?m by excluding Chri?tianity a? a hybrid, Julian ?eem? unknowingly to ?muggle Chri?tian idea? into hi? very attempt to outlaw Chri?tianity. There i? a new moment in fifth-century Chri?tian here?iological di?cour?e. Where in previou? time? the general move wa? to name Chri?tian schismatic? Jew? (a motif that continue? along?ide the new one),62 only [End Page 22] at thi? time (notably in Epiphaniu? and Jerome) i? di?tingui?hing Judaizing heretic? from orthodox Jew? central to the Chri?tian di?cur?ive project.63 A? one pie ce of evidence for thi? claim, I would say an explo?ion of here?iological intere?t in the Jewi?h-Chri?tian here?ie? of the Nazarene? and the Ebionite? at thi? time. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, J. K. L. Gie?eler already accept that the brighte?t moment in the hi?tory of the?e two group? doubtle?? fall? about the year cd A.D., at which time we have the be?t count on? concerning them.64 Given that, in fact, it ?eem? unlikely that the?e ?ect? truly flouri?hed at thi? particular time,65 we guide to di? screenland other way? of under?tanding thi? ?triking literary flowering. The Ebionite? and Nazorean?, in my reading, function much a? the mythologic trick?ter design? of many religion?, in that preci?ely by tran?gre??ing border? that the culture e?tabli?he?, they reify tho?e boundarie?.66 The di?cour?e of the Judaizing heretic? thu? perform? thi? very function of reinforcing the binarie?.67 The purpo?e of Epiphaniu?? di?cour?e on the Ebionite? and Nazarene? i? to pa rticipate in the purple project of take in of (in t! hi? ca?e) Pale?tine by identifying and reifying the . . . religion?. Epiphaniu? explicitly indicate? that thi? i? hi? purpo?e by opus of Ebion, the (imaginary) here?iarch go wrong of the ?ect: But ?ince he i? practically midway between all the ?ect?, he i? nothing. The word? of ?cripture, I wa? almo?t in all evil, in the mid?t of the church and ?ynagogue [Prov 5.14], are fulfilled in him. For he i? ?amaritan, but reject? the name with di?gu?t. And period profe??ing to be [End Page 23] a Jew, he i? the oppo?ite of Jew?-though he doe? agree with them in part.68 In a antiquated moment of midra?hic wit (which one he?itate? to attribute to Epiphaniu? him?elf), the ver?e of sawing machine? i? read to mean that I wa? in all evil, becau?e I wa? in the mid?t (between) the church and the ?ynagogue. Epiphaniu?? declaration that the Ebionite? are nothing, e?pecially when put next to Jerome? famou? declaration that the Nazarene? have in mind that they are Chri?tian? and Jew?, but in re ality are neither, ?trongly generate? for me the in?i?tence in the modern period that the people of ?outhern Africa have no religion, not becau?e they are not Chri?tian?, but becau?e they are not pagan?.69 ?uddenly it ?eem? important to the?e two writer? to a??ert a difference between Judaizing heretic? and Jew?. The a?cription of exi?tence to the hybrid? a??ume? (and thu? a??ure?) the exi?tence of nonhybrid, thin religion?. Here?iology i? not only, a? it i? u?ually figured, the in?i?tence on ?ome (or another) right doctrine but on a di?cour?e of the pure a? oppo?ed to the hybrid, a di?cour?e that then posit? the hybrid a? it? oppo?ite term. The di?cour?e of race a? examine by Homi Bhabha prove? helpful: The exertion? of the official knowledge? of coloniali?m-p?eudo-?cientific, typological, legal-admini?trative, eugenici?t-are pose at the point of their production of meaning and power with the fanta?y that dramatize? the impo??ible de?ire for a pure, undifferentiated origin.70 We need only ?ub?titute here?iological for eugenici?t! in thi? ?entence to arrive at a major the?i? of thi? article. If, on one level, a? I have tried to expre??, orthodox Judai?m i? produced a? the unhopeful of Chri?tian here?iology, and orthodox Chri?tianity a? the down(p) of Jewi?h here?iology, on yet another level, the heretic? and the minim are di?cur?ively (and perhap? literally) the ?ame folk?: they con?titute the impo??ible de?ire of which Bhabha ?peak?. Jerome, Epiphaniu?? younger contemporary, i? the other mo?t prolific writer about Jewi?h-Chri?tian? in antiquity.71 Jacob? read? Jerome? Hebraic knowledge a? an important part of the coloniali?t project of the Theodo?ian age.72 I want to focu? here on only one a?pect of Jerome? [End Page 24] di?cour?e about Jew?, hi? di?cu??ion? of the Jewi?h-Chri?tian?. cumulusel Newman ha? recently argued that Jerome? di?cour?e about the Judaizer? and Nazarene? i? more or le?? con?tructed out of whole cloth.73 It thu? ?harply rai?e? the que?tion of motivation, for, a? hi?torian Marc Bloch note?, [T]o e?tabli?h the fact of forgery i? not enough. It i? further nece??ary to di?cover it? motivation? . . . Above all, a fraud i?, in it? way, a piece of evidence.74 I would ?ugge?t that Jerome, in general a much clearer thinker than Epiphaniu?, move? in the ?ame direction but with greater lucidity. For him, it i? ab?olutely unambiguou? that rabbinic Judai?m i? not a Chri?tian here?y but a ?eparate religion. The Mi?chlinge thu? explicitly mark out the ?pace of il genuineness, of no religion: In our own day there exi?t? a ?ect among the Jew? throughout all the ?ynagogue? of the Ea?t, which i? called the ?ect of the Minei, and i? even now reprobateed by the Phari?ee?. The adherent? to thi? ?ect are know commonly a? Nazarene?; they believe in Chri?t the ?on of God, born of the Virgin Mary; and they ?ay that He who ?uffered under Pontiu? Pilate and ro?e again, i? the ?ame a? the one in whom we believe. But while they de?ire to be both Jew? and Chri?tian?, they are neither the one nor the other.75 Thi? proclamation of Jerome? ! come? in the context of hi? di?cu??ion with Augu?tine about Galatian? 2, in which Augu?tine, di?allowing the notion that the apo?tle? di??imulated when they kept Jewi?h practice?, ?ugge?t? that their Jewi?h-Chri?tianity wa? legitimate. Jerome re?pond? vigorou?ly, under?tanding the danger of ?uch notion? to totalizing proud orthodoxy.76 What i? new here i? not, obviou?ly, the condemnation of the Jewi?h-Chri?tian heretic? but that the Chri?tian author condemn? them, in addition, for not being Jew?: He thu? implicitly mark? the exi?tence and legitimacy of a true Jewi?h religion along?ide Chri?tianity, [End Page 25] a? oppo?ed to the fal?itie? of the Mi?chlinge. Thi? move parallel?, then, Epiphaniu?? in?i?tence that the Ebionite? are nothing. Pu?hing Jacob?? version a bit further, I would ?ugge?t that Jerome? in?i?tence on tran?lating from the Hebrew i? both an in?tance of control of the Jew (Jacob?? point) and al?o the very marking out of the Jew? a? ab?olute other to Chri?tianity. I think that it i? not going too far to ?ee here a reflection of a ?ocial and political proce?? like that David Chide?ter input? in an merely different hi?torical moment, The di?covery of an indigenou? religiou? ?y?tem on ?outhern African landmark? depended upon colonial conque?t and domination. Once contained under colonial control, an indigenou? commonwealth wa? found to have it? own religiou? ?y?tem.77 Following out the logic of thi? ?tatement ?ugge?t? that there may have been a ?imilar nexu? between the containment of the Jew? under the colonial nerve centre of the Chri?tian empire and the di?covery/invention of Judai?m a? a religion. Looked at from the other direction, the a??ertion of the exi?tence of a fully ?eparate-from-Chri?tianity orthodox Judai?m functioned for Chri?tian orthodoxy a? a justify of the Chri?tian? own bounded and long identity and thu? furthered the project of imperial control, a? marked out by Jacob?. The di?cur?ive proce??e? in the ?ituation of Chr i?tian empire are very different from the project? of! mutual ?elf-definition that I have el?ewhere explored.78 Jerome? famou? ?tatement ju?t cited above that the Nazorean? are neither Jew? nor Chri?tian?79 i? emblematic of the prescriptive and pre?criptive-not de?criptive-nature of ?uch categorie?, which of cour?e, become de?criptive in?ofar a? the pre?cription i? adhered to, no more or le??. Thi? interpretation add? ?omething to that of Jacob?, who write? that among the abnormal figure? of Chri?tian di?cour?e we often find the Jew, the proximate other u?ed to produce the hierarchical ?pace between the Chri?tian and the non-Chri?tian.80 I am ?ugge?ting that the heretic can al?o be read a? a proximate Other, producing a hierarchical ?pace between the Chri?tian and the Jew. Thi? point i? at lea?t partially anticipated by Jacob? him?elf when he write? that Jew? exi?t a? the paradigmatic to-be-known in the overwhelming project of conceptualizing the all in all of orthodoxy. Thi? come? out mo?t clearly in the [Epiphanian] [End Page 26] account? of Jewi?h-Chri?tian here?ie?.81 One way of ?pinning thi? would be to ?ee here?iology a? central to the production of Judai?m a? the pure other of Chri?tian orthodoxy, while the other way of interpreting it would be to ?ee Judai?m a? e??ential to the production of orthodoxy over-again?t here?y. My point i? that both of the?e moment? in an o?cillating analy?i? are equally important and valid. ?een in thi? light, the very notion of Jewi?h Chri?tian? (not by that name, of cour?e but a? Judaizing Chri?tian?) i? all-important(a) in the formation of Chri?tianity a? the univer?al and imperial religion of the late Roman empire and, later on, of European Chri?tendom a? well. 3. Jewi?h-Chri?tianity i? a Term of Art of Modern Here?iology I begin thi? ?ection with ?ome reflection? of Matt yap?on-McCabe from hi? programmatic e??ay at the beginning of Jewi?h Chri?tianity Recon?idered: The fellowship ha? generally been con?trued by ?cholar?, and mo?tly unreflectively ?o, a? a ?ubcla?? of Chri?tianity. Two critical if typically ! un?poken a??umption? brace up thi? notion of a Jewi?h Chri?tianity. The fir?t i? that, even if the name it?elf had not yet been coined, a religion that can u?efully be di?tingui?hed from Judai?m a? Chri?tianity wa? in fact in exi?tence immediately in the wake of Je?u? death, if not already within hi? own lifetime. The ?econd i? that tho?e ancient group? who ?eem from our per?pective to ?it on the borderline between Judai?m and Chri?tianity are nonethele?? operating expense under?tood a? example? of the latter. ?eriou? que?tion? have been rai?ed regarding both of the?e a??umption? in recent ?cholar?hip.82 Jack?on-McCabe then correctly ?pecifie? that particularly important for the que?tion of Jewi?h Chri?tianity in all thi? ha? been the realization that much of what ha? traditionally been a??ociated with Chri?tianity in particular wa? factually characteri?tic of other fir?t-century Jewi?h movement? a? well.83 I would go further than thi? (and have), arguing that [End Page 27] ev erything that ha? traditionally been set a? Chri?tianity in particular exi?ted in ?ome non-Je?u? Jewi?h movement? of the fir?t century and later a? well. I ?ugge?t, therefore, that there i? no nontheological or nonanachroni?tic way at all to di?tingui?h Chri?tianity from Judai?m until in?titution? are in place that make and follow out thi? di?tinction, and even then, we know preciou? little about what the nonelite and nonchattering cla??e? were sentiment or doing. In my work, I have tried to ?how that there i? at lea?t ?ome rea?on to think that, in fact, va?t number? of people around the empire do no ?uch firm di?tinction? at all until more or less late in the ?tory. I want to make clear now that it i? (almo?t) equally impo??ible to ?peak of Judai?m nontheologically or in a nonback?hadowing way either until in?titution? are formed which can enforce thi? di?tinction and then with the ?ame forethought?. What doe? thi? advent do to the category of Jewi?h Chri?tianity? Jack?o n-McCabe rightly note? that there are ?cholar? who ha! ve recently ?ugge?ted abandoning the name Jewi?h Chri?tianity and even Chri?tian Judai?m, ?ub?tituting rather ?uch alternative term? a? a Je?u?-movement or Je?u?-believing Jew?, Chri?t-believer?, or apo?tolic Judai?m, but then cavil?, Whether employing the procedural Chri?tian or not, however, thi? new approach ?uffer? from ?ome of the ?ame ba?ic problem? that have plagued the more traditional formulation?. There i? no more agreement among the?e ?cholar? about the criteria that allow one to di?tingui?h Chri?tian (or Je?u?-believing, etc.) Judai?m from Chri?tianity, or regarding the ?pecific body of data relevant to the category, than there ha? been in the ca?e of Jewi?h Chri?tianity. If, however, we follow the intent of at lea?t ?ome of the?e ?cholar?, me certainly included, thi? objection rather mi??e? the point, which i? preci?ely not to di?tingui?h between the?e and other Chri?tian? but between the?e and other Jew?; the only two categorie?, when divided by thi? criterion, are bet ween Jew? who believed in Je?u? in ?ome ?en?e or another and Jew? who did not. The entire que?tion ha? been ?hifted unaccompanied; it i? no longer a dogmatic que?tion of di?tinction? within Chri?tianity between orthodox and heterodox, or even between different varietie? of orthodoxy a? Cardinal Daniélou would have it, but between different type? of Jew?, pro?elyte?, and theo?eboumenoi, and gerim (re?ident alien?, who were required to keep preci?ely the law? marked out in cause? for gentile partner? of Je?u?, [End Page 28] a? pointed out by Hill).84 One relevant taxon for ?uch de?cription? i? Je?u?-belief but it i? no longer clear that even thi? i? the mo?t intere?ting or per?picaciou? way of thinking about different Jewi?h group?. The whole enterpri?e i? no longer eccle?iocentric and ?o the category of Jewi?h Chri?tianity i? completely evacuated of meaning. It i? not enough to point out, a? Jack?on-McCabe i? wieldful to do, that different ?cholar? have different under?tanding ? of the new terminologie? but rather one mu?t mark t! hat radical ?hift in per?pective from the here?y model. Anything le?? i? to continue to commit the theologically founded anachroni?m of ?eeing Jew? (and thu? Jewi?h Je?u? folk al?o) a? more or le?? Jewi?h in?ofar a? they approach the religion of the rabbi? (which wa? al?o much more heterogeneou? than we had thought). ?een from thi? per?pective, which may indeed be a jaundiced or otherwi?e di?torted one, continuing to u?e the term and concept Jewi?h Chri?tianity i? ?imply to reject, explicitly or implicitly, the work of ?cholar? who have rethought genealogie? of Judai?m and Chri?tianity that render the term meaningle?? and to perpetuate-I would argue-eccle?iological and here?iological categorie?, comparatively unque?tioned for centurie? becau?e both Jew? and Chri?tian? were comfortable with the ?ocial di?tinction? they enforced. In other word?, I am ?ugge?ting that while the category of Jewi?h Chri?tianity ha? ?hifted it? meaning along with ?hift? in the under?tanding of the relatio n of Judai?m to Chri?tianity, a hi?torical under?tanding that obviate? the categorie? of Judai?m and Chri?tianity (for ?ome purpo?e? until the mid-?econd century and for other? until the fourth) will certainly have no u?e whatever for the category of Jewi?h Chri?tianity, implying, a? it doe?, preci?ely what the revi?ioni?t hi?torical account denie?. I am ?ugge?ting that the problem i? not how to define Jewi?h Chri?tianity, but why we ?hould be u?ing ?uch a category at all? What work doe? it do? What work could it po??ibly do, other than to delineate Judai?m from Chri?tianity rhetorically or po??ibly to di?tingui?h between Chri?tian? who in?i?t that they are not Jew? and Chri?tian? who make no ?uch declaration?? The choice of terminology ha? con?equence?. In hi? clear-thinking and admirably paper on the Jeru?alem church, Craig Hill prefer? to continue to u?e the term Jewi?h Chri?tianity over Chri?tian Judai?m, arguing that in part, thi? i? a retroactive?pective theory that take? into account the eventual ?plit between the two reli! gion?. [End Page 29] Ju?t a? important, it factor? in the exi?tence of Gentile Chri?tianity, who?e legitimacy wa? formally accepted by the Jeru?alem church. (Gentile Chri?tian? were not con?idered Jew?, ?o Judai?m i? not the overarching category.)85 There ?eem to me here a few undertheorized category a??umption? that are tough from my point of view, namely, (1) the a??umption that the set up of whatever ?plit there can be imagined between Judai?m and Chri?tianity wa? between two religion? and (2) that there wa? a religion called Judai?m to which tho?e who were not Jew? did not belong. The?e two a??umption? re?ult preci?ely from the retro?pective judgment to which Hill admit? that he i? committed, gibe to which (but again from an admitted Chri?tian per?pective) there end up being two religion?, one called Chri?tianity and one called Judai?m. However, a? I have argued at length (in an argument that I would think need? at lea?t to be refuted before we can go on with bu?ine?? a? u?u al), the privation of an appellation for Chri?tianity before at lea?t the invention of the term in Antioch in the early ?econd century, and even after that in mo?t of the world until much later, i? not a mere gap in the lexicon but an e??ential cultural fact. It i?, moreover, no coincidence that the fir?t u?e? of the term Ioudai?mo? to mean a religiou? phenomenon in any ?en?e of the word al?o ?tem from Antioch and refer to believer? in Je?u? who dont believe rightly, according to Ignatiu?. ?peaking hi?torically, then, Judai?m i? the name of a group of Chri?tian?, anathematized from the very beginning of the name by gentile? onerous to e?tabli?h their legitimacy and the exclu?ive legitimacy of their antidocetic theologie? and anti-Torah-ba?ed practice?. What can Jewi?h Chri?tianity mean? A? intere?ting a? Hill? e??ay i?, hi? a??umption? lead him to the fal?e (from my point of view) a??umption that there i? a ?eparate religion that can be called Chri?tianity even before Paul come? o n the ?cene, a fortiori afterward.86 A??umption? that! lead good ?cholar? to ?uch conclu?ion? need to be examined from the ground up. All thi?, I ?hould empha?ize once again, i? not to challenge the ?cholar?hip of Craig Hill-but to ?ugge?t an entirely different way of bod and thinking about that excellent ?cholar?hip it?elf. Let me put the que?tion differently: change surface a??uming for a moment that Hurtado i? right-and Hill follow? him-that wor?hip of a figure like Je?u? i? ab?olutely comical within Judai?m to the group? who wor?hipped Je?u?, on what ground? could we con?ider thi? a new or different ?pecie? of the genu? religion?? The rabbi? introduced innovation? no le?? outstanding vi?-à-vi? earlier I?raelite, [End Page 30] and even Jewi?h (by which I mean belonging to Yehud), religiou? practice? but no one i? tempted to call them a different religion. Even ?uppo?ing that it i? unique, why ?hould wor?hip of Je?u?, con?titute a different religion? And further, why ?hould it con?titute one even prior to the actual exi?tence of the practice, ?uch that we would know that the practitioner? were entering into the category of Chri?tian? when they embarked on ?uch practice? I? there a Platonic Idea of Chri?tianity hovering ?omewhere in the onto?phere? The volume edited by ?kar?aune and Hvalvik ?tart? out ?eemingly with a much more radical change in per?pective, with it? title, Jewi?h Believer? in Je?u?,87 which would ?eem, at lea?t at fir?t glance, a? an attempt to di?place the category of Jewi?h Chri?tianity. later a fairly elaborate opening ?tatement, in which the editor? make clear that they are not talking about a category of Chri?tianity but a category of Chri?tian?, that i?, believer? in Je?u? (whatever their Chri?tian practice and belief) who are of Jewi?h ethnic background, they neverthele?? retain the term Jewi?h Chri?tian to mean tho?e of that group who maintain a Jewi?h way of life. But, then, ?omewhat confu?ingly ?kar?aune write?, a? well, we will u?e the adjectival Jewi?h Chri?tian a? app lying to all categorie? of Jewi?h believer?.88 In any! ca?e, whatever the terminology, the empha?i? i? firmly on the ethnicity of the believer? in que?tion and not the form of their Chri?tianity. Thi?, it i? ?ugge?ted and ?upported, i? in line with ancient u?age? a? well. Here the problem? (a? admitted) begin. ?kar?aune a?k? why the category be by ethnicity ?hould be of theological ?ignificance and an?wer? that thi? i? becau?e the ?o-called Jewi?h leader?hip delineate Chri?tian? who were Jew? a? apo?tate? but not gentile Chri?tian?, and ?een from thi? per?pective, the que?tion of ethnicity wa? a que?tion of the utmo?t theological ?ignificance.89 But there are ?everal problem? with thi? ?tatement: Fir?t of all, thi? would render it a que?tion of Jewi?h theology, not Chri?tian theology, a??uming, of cour?e a? the editor? do, that the?e can be di?tingui?hed at the time. ?econd, there i? no definition of what Jewi?h leader?hip i? being talked about, nor when, nor where: rabbi? in third-century Pale?tine, in ?ixth-century Babylonia, Phari ?ee? of the fir?t century, Jame? the Ju?t, Jo?ephu?? Finally, Jewi?h believer?-oh what a theologically loaded term that i? when unqualified and mean? believer? in Chri?t; clearly ordinary Jew? are not believer?-in [End Page 31] Je?u? were not called apo?tate? to the be?t of my knowledge but minim, which mean? ?omething like heretic? or ?ectarian?, i.e., adherent? of a deviant form of Judai?m and not non-Jew?. For the earlier rabbi?, ?o-called gentile Chri?tian? ?eem to be ?imply gentile? (to the extent that they were assured of ?uch a phenomenon at all) and for later Babylonian rabbi?, minim, a? well. Thu?, while I do agree with the point that having Jewi?h ethnicity do a difference in early Chri?tianity, including of the Pauline allowance (but who know? until when?), it remain? a major methodological legerdemain to define the difference it made in term? of the ideologic pronouncement? of the leader? of certain group? within both Chri?tian and non-Chri?tian Judai?m. Inter al ia, it involve? the ?ame kind of anachroni?tic reific! ation of categorie? that we have ?een above. A? ?kar?aune write?, The bottom line regarding Jewi?h identity, then, i? that people who con?idered them?elve? Jewi?h and were con?idered to be Jewi?h by the Jewi?h community were Jewi?h.90 Thi? pa??age it?elf can be read in two way?: either that Jew? are tho?e who are know a? ?uch by a Jewi?h community a? ethnic Jew? and thu? ?ubject to apo?ta?y, or, Jew? are tho?e who are recognized by a Jewi?h community a? having remained within the community. The fir?t definition i? le?? problematical than the ?econd for obviou? rea?on?. It ha? the virtue, at lea?t, of le?? obviou?ly importing and impo?ing normative categorie?. However, given that non Chri?tian Jew? rarely (at be?t) called them?elve? Ioudaioi, and that Chri?tian Jew? ?eemed to have u?ed the term for ?omeone other than them?elve?, and that at lea?t ?ome non-Jewi?h Chri?tian? u?ed it to mean unpredictable Chri?tian? and other? ?imply to mean tho?e people whom were likely today to cal l Jew?, were in trouble here too. To hi? credit, ?kar?aune clearly recognize? that normative definition? of cleared religiou? boundarie? e?tabli?hed by religiou? leader? among Jew? and Chri?tian? by which Jew? cannot be Chri?tian? and Chri?tian? cannot be Jew?, ?hould not be accepted by hi?torical ?cholar?hip.91 At the ?ame time, however, hi? view remain?