In the first part of his watershed work, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E to 640 C.E., Seth Schwartz, the Gerson D. Cohen Professor of History at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, argues “that imperial support for the central national institutions of the Jews, the Jerusalem temple and the Pentateuch, helps explain why these eventually became the chief symbols of Jewish corporate identity” (14). To support his claim, Schwartz briefly surveys Jewish history from 539 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.
With the exception of Antiochus IV, every imperial power in Judea, between 539 B.C.E. and 70 C.E., sponsored the Jerusalem temple and the Torah as the Jews’ constitution. In 539 B.C.E. King Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid Empire conquered the Babylonians in Jerusalem. In the year after, he issued the Declaration of Cyrus, inviting all previously conquered and expelled peoples back to the land, encouraging them to restore their holy places and return to their ways of worship. For the Jews, Cyrus then sponsored the rebuilding of the Temple, completed in 516/515 B.C.E., and authorized the “Law of Moses” as the official law for the Jews. Ruled by the Greeks from 333 B.C.E. to 63 B.C.E., the Jews continued to have relative autonomy. Although the Greeks did not support the Jerusalem temple and the Torah as actively as the Persians did, “they no where actively forced their own language or culture on their subjects” (Schwartz 26). Nothing really changes under the Romans until 70 C.E. “The Romans…allowed the Jews to remain a more or less autonomous nation centered on the Jerusalem temple and governed by the laws of the Torah” (Schwartz 43). In each of these cases, Schwartz’s argument holds true. The Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans all, either actively supported or accepted the Jews’ way of life as dictated by the Torah and put into focus by the Temple. Because of their involvement with these institutions, it only makes sense that they would impacted how “the Jerusalem temple and the Pentateuch…became the chief symbols of Jewish corporate identity” (Schwartz 14).
But on second thought, it appears that Schwartz’s thesis has another aspect to it, chiefly: “imperial support for the central national institutions of the Jews, the Jerusalem temple and the Pentateuch, helps explain why these eventually became the chief symbols of Jewish corporate identity [Emphasis added]” (14). Clearly, the powers that ruled over the Jews facilitated, in some form or another, the continued dominance of the Jerusalem temple and Torah, but can one go as far as to say that the foreign powers actually shaped the Temple and the Pentateuch into the main symbols of Jewish identity as a whole? The majority of scholars, having come to accept Schwartz’s arguement, would reply “Yes.” Ensuring relative unity among its peoples was in the best interests of every ruling power. Contentions within Judaism and any other group of people would have complicated the ruling government’s ability to satisfy its “citizens,” thus making it more difficult to retain their power.
Why does any of the above matter; how could it possibly have any impact on Jewry today? To answer this question, we must realize that Schwartz’s scholarship really focuses on a fundamental question: that of identity. “Who creates Jewish identity: Gentiles or Jews?”
If we look back at the history presented above, the answer seems to favor Gentiles. They had the ability to forbid Jews from worshipping at the Temple and from basing their lives on the teachings of the Torah. But they did not.
On the other hand though, the roots of the Torah and the temple cult stem from the Jews’ predecessors, the Israelites. They started these traditions, not the Persians, Greeks, or Romans.
However we understand the origins of the Temple and the Torah, we must realize that the Jews’ self-perceived identity during the Persian Period differed from that during the Greek Period and from that of the Roman one. It seems unlikely to surmise that the changes in power alone influenced how the Jews saw themselves; this would imply that, had the rulers not changed, the Jews themselves would have stayed the same. We must reject this notion, because as people grow they see themselves differently. With neither the imperial powers alone shaping Jewish identity nor the Jews shaping it themselves, it seems that a combination of the two did the job.
But what about now? Who creates Jewish identity in today’s world where gloablization connects everyone, spreading diversity but simultaneously imposing dominant cultures on minorities and thereby threatning to wipe them out? In our case, what makes a Jew a Jew? We have a whole host of answers including food, language, belief, ethnicity, nationality, customs, culture, etc. Yet none of these answers alone seem to qualify Jews. Many Jews no longer keep kosher, and those that do have much in common with Muslims that keep hallal. Jews no longer just speak Hebrew or Yiddish, and those that do share the language with Gentiles. Judaism has never had a set dogma, and belief has never really united Jews, except for the qualification that the Messiah, if one believes in it, has not yet come. Moreover, Jews come from many different ethnicities and countries. Ashkenazim have different cutsoms than do the Sephardim. And Jewish culture means something different to everyone.
So, who/what creates Jewish identity? Because most of us no longer live under foreign rulers, shaping how we practice our Judaism, Jews shape their own identity. Thus, self-identification remains the only answer. I see myself as Jew for different reasons than for the ones that you do, but we both see each ourselves as Jews!
Admittedly, this answer does not seem satisfying enough, but until a better one comes around, we must accept it.
Works Cited:
Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E to 640 C.E., (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 14, 26, 43.
Born and raised in Louisville, Kentucky, David Bloom attends Indiana University Bloomington where he majors in Jewish Studies and Religious Studies. His column, J-Studs, appears here on alternating Saturdays.
