speaking of “Judaisms” rather than “Judaism” (e.g., Neusner, Green, and
Frerichs 1987: ix). The plural has been adopted by some scholars (e.g.,
Boccaccini) but is infelicitous: to speak of “a Judaism” requires the over-
arching concept of “Judaism” in the singular. While Neusner’s insistence
that each corpus of Jewish literature (say, the Dead Sea Scrolls) be analyzed
in its own right and not read through the lens of another corpus (say, the
Mishnah) is salutary, it does not follow that each corpus represents a dis-
tinct religious system. Insistence on radical diversity distorts the data just
as much as an essentialist approach that would exclude ostensibly Jewish
material that does not conform to a norm (see the remarks of Green 1994:
298 on Sanders’sPaul and Palestinian Judaism:“Paul’s writings are ana-
lyzed in juxtaposition to Judaism rather than as part of it”).
In his recent attempt at a sweeping characterization of early Judaism,
Seth Schwartz is sharply critical of Neusner: “I reject the characterization
of Judaism as multiple, as well as the atomistic reading of the sources that
justifies it” (Schwartz 2001: 9). He continues: “The notion that each piece
of evidence reflects a discrete social organization is obviously wrong.” It is
not apparent, however, that Neusner associates his different “Judaisms”
with “discrete social organizations.” Schwartz goes on to distinguish
broadly between “apocalyptic mythology” and “covenantal ideology”
(Schwartz 2001: 78-82). He regards these as “incongruous systems”: “The
covenant imagines an orderly world governed justly by the one God. The
apocalyptic myth imagines a world in disarray, filled with evil; a world in
which people do not get what they deserve. God is not in control in any
obvious way; indeed the cosmology of the myth is dualist or polythe-
ist....”Theaccuracyofthis sketch of “the apocalyptic myth” might be
questioned, especially with regard to whether God is in control, but there
is no doubt that there are real differences here. Schwartz notes “the re-
peated juxtaposition of the covenant and the myth in ancient Jewish writ-
ing” and infers that “though the systems are logically incongruous, they
did not for the most part generate social division.” Thus he agrees with
Sanders that “apocalyptic Judaism” was not a separate entity. He is also du-
bious about “covenantal Judaism.” Rather, he supposes that “the apocalyp-
tic myth” was “a more or less fully naturalized part of the ideology of Juda-
ism.” Insofar as he recognizes “incongruous systems,” Schwartz may not be
as far removed from Neusner as he thinks, although the latter would surely
insist on a greater variety of systems. At the same time, Schwartz can avoid
the impression of fragmentation that is conveyed by Neusner’s insistence
on multiple Judaisms.8john j. collinsEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:03:48 PM