Who owns the Jewish past? Judaism, Judaisms, and the writing of Jewish history.

摘要

This work criticizes the representation of "Judaism" as a post-exilic religion set against pre-exilic "Israel," and characterized by contradictory combinations, e.g., universalism versus particularism, prophecy versus law. It is argued that this model is not based on the evidence of the primary sources, but arose from 19th century debates on German Protestant and German Jewish identity. Liberal Protestant scholars, such as W. M. L. de Wette and J. Wellhuasen, promoted this model to posit themselves as true "Israelites," but not "Jews," as the basis for a common German identity, and to promote the dissolution of a separate Jewish identity in Germany. It is also argued that this representation of Judaism constitutes a discourse, which is called "Judeography" in this work, characterized by specific rules of formation. Some 19th century German Jewish scholars, such as L. Zunz and H. Graetz, attempted to resist this representation by offering counter-models characterized by continuity and coherence. The Liberal Protestant model prevailed and "Judeographic" models of the Jewish past persist in the work of scholars such as J. Neusner, P. R. Davies, N. P. Lemche, and T. L. Thompson. An alternative model is offered against the dominant Judeographic representation. The primary evidence does not support the kind of radical rupture between pre- and post-exilic religions as posited 19th century scholars. Nor does it support the Persian-invented "Judaism" as posited by Davies and Thompson, or the multiple Judaisms posited by Jacob Neusner. Archaeological and other evidence indicates a continuity of the Judean-Jewish population throughout Babylonian deportations and after the destruction of the Second Temple, and source analysis reveals that "Israel" and not "Judaism" remained the primary term of self-reference. Continuity and coherence remained characteristic of Jewish identity throughout later periods. This model does not discount diversity among Jews at that time. Instead, building upon alternative anthropological models, this work postulates a common Judaism as the "big tradition" represented by the temple, monarchy, and sacred canon, and local judaisms as the "little traditions" represented by various texts and social groups.