chapterone
.. How to Define Jewish Christianity:
Indicators of Jewish-Christian ProfilesThe problematic nature of the term “Jewish Christianity” is well known in
present scholarship but no consensus has emerged on how to deal with
it.^16 Some scholars have questioned the generalized use of the term as
obscuring historical realities^17 or considered the term useless because
scholars have applied it in so many ways.^18 Many have experimented
with different variations of the term, such as Jewish Christianity (with
and without a hyphen), Judaeo-Christianity, Judaic Christianity, Judaistic
Christianity, Christian Judaism, Hebrew Christianity, etc., in order to
make distinctions between relevant subcategories of the phenomenon.^19
An overview of the latest attempts to define the term allows only
one conclusion: There is no generally accepted and accurately definable
meaning for the term “Jewish-Christianity” (or for all its variations as
cited above). Need there be?^20
During the past decades scholars have become increasingly aware of
the multifaceted character of both Judaism and Christianity during the
firstcenturiesce.Inscholarlydiscourse,thisisoftenindicatedbythe
plurals “Christianities” and “Judaisms.” Consequently, it is likely that
there was not just one Jewish Christianity butseveral Jewish Christian-
ities. Acknowledging this possibility, I have not tried to give any nar-
row, conclusive definition to the term “Jewish Christianity” in this vol-
ume. Rather, I approach Jewish Christianity from an analytical point of
view, looking forindicators of Jewish Christian profiles.^21 The main idea
(^16) The problems connected with defining Jewish Christianity have been dealt by
Strecker ; Kraft , –; Klijn , –; Simon , –; Malina ,
–; Riegel , –; Murray , –; Murray , –; Brown
, –; Taylor , –; Visotzky , –. Recent overviews of the
discussion are provided by Jackson-McCabe and Paget .
(^17) Thus, Taylor , –.
(^18) Paget , –.
(^19) For distinctive terms see, Malina , –; Riegel , –; Murray ,
–; Murray , –; Brown , –.
(^20) The problem does not concern only the study of Jewish Christianity. The concept of
Gnosticism has become equally problematic, especially after Michael Williams’ (Williams
) critique. A good overview of the discussion and a reasonable definition is provided
by Marjanen a; . For the discussion on Valentinians, see Dunderberg , –
.
(^21) I have used the approach in a number of earlier articles: Luomanen , –;
Luomanen a; Luomanen . Recently, it has been cited approvingly by Verheyden
, –.