I think the term “Judaisms” stems from a desire to overcome the tendency to think of Judaism as a monolithic entity defined entirely by the polemic of Jesus and Paul. Nevertheless, there certainly are common threads connecting all variations on Jewish identity. I think there is value in both terms. Mathematicians speak of “maths,” and musicologists speak of “musics,” but also still use both terms in the singular as well.
I still use the word Judaism and Christianity today but the truth is, from Jesus day, there have always been Judaisms and from early Christianity, there has always been Christianities.
I don’t know enough about 1st century Judaism to comment meaningfully, but modern Israel has literally dozens of political parties. It’s rare for any one of them to be able to form government, and some recent coalitions have been almost absurd in their range of policies. Hence the saying in Israel that wherever there are two Jews there are at least three opinions.
Thanks for this series on Jesus as a Jew, Judaism(s) and Judaioi.
I can see that the neologism 'Judaisms' is not very helpful.
If Jesus is wholly within Judaism, as Tom Wright correctly states, but there are different 'Judaisms' we are naturally led to ask then which 'Judaism' He was within.
We thankfully no longer see Him as a Catholic, but will we now be making the mistake of asking what Judaic denomination He was part of?
He identified with none, except those who obeyed the law fully and who worshipped purely. He criticised all who did not.
I think the term “Judaisms” stems from a desire to overcome the tendency to think of Judaism as a monolithic entity defined entirely by the polemic of Jesus and Paul. Nevertheless, there certainly are common threads connecting all variations on Jewish identity. I think there is value in both terms. Mathematicians speak of “maths,” and musicologists speak of “musics,” but also still use both terms in the singular as well.
Good 👍
I still use the word Judaism and Christianity today but the truth is, from Jesus day, there have always been Judaisms and from early Christianity, there has always been Christianities.
Seth Schwartz made a compelling case for at least enough commonality among second temple Jews to speak of Judaism rather than "Judaisms".
I don’t know enough about 1st century Judaism to comment meaningfully, but modern Israel has literally dozens of political parties. It’s rare for any one of them to be able to form government, and some recent coalitions have been almost absurd in their range of policies. Hence the saying in Israel that wherever there are two Jews there are at least three opinions.
Thanks for this series on Jesus as a Jew, Judaism(s) and Judaioi.
I can see that the neologism 'Judaisms' is not very helpful.
If Jesus is wholly within Judaism, as Tom Wright correctly states, but there are different 'Judaisms' we are naturally led to ask then which 'Judaism' He was within.
We thankfully no longer see Him as a Catholic, but will we now be making the mistake of asking what Judaic denomination He was part of?
He identified with none, except those who obeyed the law fully and who worshipped purely. He criticised all who did not.
What practices indicate that Jews had a commonality.: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Jesus and his disciples etc.