University
of Nebraska Press
Shofar
- Books Received
Shofar
- Advertising &
Mailing List Info
Shofar
- Book Reviews |
Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE), by Terence L. Donaldson. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2007. 563 pp. $59.95.
This sourcebook identifies and documents the various patterns of Jewish universalism, from the Hellenistic era to the Bar Cochba revolt. The presentation follows that of Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), in which the author aims to deliver the principal texts ad seriatim, each receiving a full discussion. After an introduction (Chapter 1), Part I presents the texts and commentary, organized by corpora of sources (pp. 15–466). Part II synthesizes the findings (pp. 467–513), a good place for readers to start.
Donaldson assigns each text to one of four discrete patterns of Jewish universalism: (1) sympathization, texts describing Gentiles engaged in Jewish activity and association; (2) conversion, texts describing Gentiles becoming proselytes; (3) ethical monotheism, texts aligning Greek philosophy and Torah religion as parallel paths to a universal God; and (4) eschatological participation, texts describing Gentiles as beneficiaries in the end-time redemption of Israel (see précis on pp. 10–11). Inclusion in one or other of these categories does not mean that the text provides positive evidence for the pattern (p. 539). In many cases, Donaldson has to argue by context that the particular pattern is implicit in the text. To do so, he applies a methodology appropriated from the study of the historical Jesus, called the criterion of multiple attestation: “Where a similar viewpoint is attested in multiple sources—especially if those sources differ in form and provenance—it is appropriate to conclude that the viewpoint is present—at least in latent form—in the tradition. That is, we are justified to think that it was an inherent option, something that could exist between and beyond the points on the graph for which we have evidence” (p. 507).
Most of the texts from Scripture, the Septuagint, and Apocrypha (Chapter 2) fall under the sympathization and conversion categories. The important biblical book is Daniel, which describes the possibility that a Gentile king could venerate God and even be prepared to “become a Jew” (p. 30). Texts from the Pseudepigrapha (Chapter 3) are a mixed bag. Unsurprisingly, apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch, Sibylline Oracles, Psalms of Solomon, 2 Baruch) falls mostly under the category of eschatological participation, while apologetic works tend to display sympathization, conversion, and ethical monotheism (Letter of Aristeas, Joseph and Aseneth). Here, Donaldson’s expanded definition of universalism to include proselytism puts him at odds with scholars such as John J. Collins (p. 103). This definition becomes problematic in his analysis of the Qumran material (chapter 4). It is not true that Gentile slaves “appear to have joined their masters as full members of the covenant and thus can be described as proselytes” (p. 206, see also p. 454). Catherine Hezser, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), has shown that the practice of circumcision, typically forced, and ritual immersion did not “make” Gentile slaves “proselytes” but merely purified them to perform their necessary domestic work.
Philo of Alexandria’s writings (Chapter 5) fall mostly under the conversion category. Philo envisioned “the hallmark of proselytism” to be “ethical monotheism; the proselyte is one who, with Abraham, has exchanged the worship of the many for the worship of the One” (p. 215). “But at the same time,” Donaldson writes, Philo “gives no indication whatsoever that one could arrive at this destination without remaining or becoming a part of the ethnos whose politeia is the law of Moses” (p. 256). Flavius Josephus (Chapter 6) provides evidence mostly for sympathization. Against Apion, for example, contains “probably the most unreserved—even exuberant—acclamation of Gentiles sympathizing in the whole Josephan corpus” (p. 355). Helpful is the author’s analysis of so-called God-fearers (more on this below). Josephus’s readers would have understood the term as a “reference to Gentile worshippers. This does not mean that the term is a technical one,” however (p. 326). And Donaldson gives pride of place to the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene (King Izates). Donaldson analyzes the story (contra Shaye Cohen) for Josephus’s own views on Gentile converts (pp. 333–338). In this way, Donaldson helpfully approaches the writings of Josephus less as a “repository of historical information” and more as “literary works with their own rhetorical and ideological purposes” (p. 283).
The Greco-Roman literature (Chapter 7) includes some fourteen authors who mention sympathizers or proselytes. “The picture that emerges,” writes Donaldson, “is one where the primary initiative lay with Gentiles. Jews may have been willing to instruct those who sought them out, but the seeking was the first step” (p. 395). Donaldson then takes this finding to an analysis of early Christian literature (Chapter 8). The Gospel of Matthew offers little support for previous scholarship claiming Second Temple Judaism to be a “missionary religion” (p. 413). And the mention of pious sympathizers, God-fearers, in Luke–Acts reflects “a general phenomenon rather than a specific, well-defined category” (p. 434). The epigraphic evidence (Chapter 9) supports this conclusion, with attention to the Jewish manumission inscriptions from the Bosporus Kingdom.
Donaldson follows a consensus in biblical studies correcting previous scholarship that had labeled ancient Judaism as “particularistic” in contrast to Christianity’s universalism. Donaldson originally conceived the sourcebook as a companion volume to his previous study, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1997; see review by Calvin J. Roetzel in Shofar 18.1 [1999]: 163–65), but the result is much more. This should become a standard reference work for students and scholars in biblical studies.
J. Albert Harrill
Department of Religious Studies
Indiana University, Bloomington |
