JESUS THE ISRAELITE WAS NEITHER A “JEW” NOR A “CHRISTIAN”:

ON CORRECTING MISLEADING NOMENCLATURE.

 

John J. Elliott, University of San Francisco, CA

elliottj@usfca.edu

 

 

            In the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.  5.2 (2007) 119-154.

 

A very exhaustive philological, historical, and cultural study. Elliott has references to Pilch, but his study gives precision to  Pilch's observations.  These are his conclusions:

 

p. 153:

 

            What names, then, would be accurate and appropriate for us-for exegetes, translators, students, pastors, and those interested in the Bible-to use when referring to Jesus, his followers, and his people? An initial and essential step in any age toward avoiding mislabeling and misconstruing the identity of persons and groups and inadvertently employing ethnic slurs is to call persons and groups by the names they prefer to call themselves. Adopting this as a principle, I make the following set of proposals concerning the terminology we employ for  identifying Jesus, his followers and compatriots.

 

            1. Following the lead of ancient Israelite insiders using with fellow insiders their preferred nomenclature of self-identification, let us refer to the ethnic entity as 'Israel', 'House of Israel', and to its members as 'Israelites', 'children of Israel'. This would emulate the insider usage of the Bible, much para-biblical literature, and the Mishnah. Where Israelites are identified by outsiders as 'ioudaios’ or where they so identify themselves, let us render 'Ioudaios’ with' Judaean' ,139  understanding thereby that both 'Ioudaios”  and 'Judaean' can have either narrower regional or wider ethnic connotations.

 

            2. Let us refer to Jesus and his earliest followers as 'Israelites' or members of the 'House of Israel'. Or, for more specific identification, let us use the place identifiers 'of Nazareth', 'Nazarene" 'of  Galilee' for Jesus, and 'Nazarenes', 'Galileans' for his first followers. We can also identify him by parentage: 'Jesus, son of Joseph/son of Mary' , and his disciples in like manner ('Peter, son of John/Jonah'). Let us avoid altogether the names 'Jew' and 'Judaean' for identifying Jesus and his earliest followers since they are terms never used as self-identifiers and have either anachronistic ('Jew') or geographically erroneous (" Judaean') implications. Let us stress their roots in Israel, not in 'Judaism'.

 

            3. Let us eliminate use of the term 'Judaism' altogether140 and in those rare instances where ioudaismos occurs in the original text let the translation be  'Judaean way of life'.

 

 

P. 154:

 

 

            4. Let us avoid the terms 'Christians' and 'Christianity' for identifying Jesus and his earliest followers. When referring to followers of Jesus in first and second centuries after the death of Jesus, let us use the name 'Christian' only in those instances when the primary sources do so (mostly on the lips of outsiders). Let us employ the various identifiers that Jesus' followers used for identifying themselves: 'Israelites" 'disciples', 'holy ones', 'children of God', 'brothers', 'sisters', 'household/family of God', 'brother] and sister [hood", 'Israel of God' , 'the Way', 'the new creation', 'the body of Christ' , and all the many more. In all cases, let us restrict ourselves to the nomenclature employed in the particular texts under investigation. And let us forthrightly explain our reasons for employing this nomenclature where necessary. This procedure may appear cumbersome, but it will be faithful to the language of the texts and will help minimize historical and social distortion.

 

            Lest the thrust of this study be misunderstood or misconstrued, let me be perfectly clear. My concern here is that we finally agree to employ terms of identification and self-identification today that reflect, and are consistent with, the historical, social and cultural situation and practice of Jesus and his early followers. I presume, along with the majority of exegetes, the rootedness of Jesus and the early Jesus movement in the Israel of their day. This study gives no support whatsoever to any who dispute this fact and isolate Jesus and his followers from their Israelite matrix. My point is that calling Jesus an Israelite rather than a Jew is consistent with Israelite usage in Jesus' time and more accurately indicates his identity and that of his earliest followers. I am urging that we hone our nomenclature to be as historically accurate and contextually appropriate as possible since so much is at stake.141

 

 


139Concurring with, and following the lead of, Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, p. 70.

140This proposal moves in an opposite direction from that of Marc Zvi Brettler (“Judaism in the Hebrew Bible? The Transition from Ancient Israelite Religion to Judaism”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.3 [1000], pp 429-447). Brettler suggests that, rather than eliminating use of the term Judaism altogether, we ‘expand the use of the term “Judaism(s)” into the pre-exilic period, thereby reflecting the continuity of tradition and practice” (p. 445).  In my opinion this would be allowing a current ideological concern for communal continuity to trump an interest in historical, social and cultural accuracy.

141 I am grateful to colleagues Amy-Jill Levine and Caroline Johnson Hodge for their helpful comments (in private communications, 23 May 2005 and 4 May 2005, respectively) on the version of this paper presented in Nova Scotia in 2004. Their criticisms and questions have prompted me to revise and amend for the sake of greater clarity and, I hope, greater cogency.