Chapter outline
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Ideological criticism as an exegetical method ........................................................................ 4
Postcolonialism as an exegetical theory ................................................................................. 5
Mapping the field ............................................................................................................... 6
My own position................................................................................................................. 8
Postcolonialism and ancient texts ...................................................................................... 9
Intersectional postcolonialism .............................................................................................. 10
Intersectional categories ....................................................................................................... 11
Ethnicity as an intersectional category ............................................................................. 11
Body as an intersectional category ................................................................................... 12
Religion as an intersectional category .............................................................................. 13
Kinship as an intersectional category ............................................................................... 13
Works Cited.............................................................................................................................. 14
Note to the participants in the seminar:
I’m still at the beginning of my dissertation project. I therefore have not made precise
decisions regarding what theories to use, or rather how to use the ones I deem beneficial for
my project. As a main line of discussion, I hope therefore, that we can discuss how to
incorporate theories in an interdisciplinary way, and how one should discuss that process in
one’s work. Furthermore, I welcome any advice one structure or, how the relationship
between postcolonial theory and biblical criticism can be further developed in my study.
How to trace an ideology of exclusion in the Persian period
– On theory and method
Introduction
This dissertation aims at analyzing matters of exclusion based on different intersectional
categories, as they appear in postexilic narratives in the Hebrew Bible. Scholars have become
increasingly aware of the importance that the Persian province of Yehud, and the postexilic
era, have played on the formation of the community that Nehemiah 13 calls “the Israelites”
and Deuteronomy 23 calls the “congregation of the Lord”.1 Furthermore, the study of the
concept of ethnicity and how it might be applicable to ancient texts have become more
integrated within biblical studies, and now evince a diversity of different perspectives as part
of an emerging field. For the past circa twenty years, these studies have gained further
recognition. Today, the study of ethnicity and identity in the Persian period is a field of its
own.
Many of the studies in this field have focused on the construction of an “Israelite” identity, as
a main line of inquiry. At the heart of this lies on the one hand the fact that a large part of the
Hebrew Bible is concerned with the concept of the Israelites as the chosen people and on the
other hand, the fact that the concept of “people” – as it is defined in the Hebrew Bible – came
to be the starting point for what was to become Rabbinic Judaism and indirectly, Christianity.
“Israelite” as an ethnic identity is a rather complex one, especially after the Exile. There are
many different factors that come into play in trying to assess its different layers. What does it
mean to have been forced to migrate, to Babylon? Who were deported? What did the
deportees have to endure during the Exile? What happened when they returned? Studies have
shown that what was earlier thought to be a mass deportation of almost an entire people from
Judah to Babylon, as the biblical narrative has it, probably is a large exaggeration, what
1
Part of my study deals with the issue of “naming” and the right to define one’s own name. Furthermore, the
issue of what to call different peoples in the geographical area that came to be known as the Persian province
Yehud is a somewhat complex task, and scholars are not unanimous. I therefore use different words depending
on context. I therefore alternate between different terms, such as Judah/Judeans or Yehud/Israelites, depending
on context. Sometimes the term “exile” will be used to differentiate between the Israelites who were exiled and
those that remained. Cf. Berquist, Constructions of Identity in Postcolonial Yehud, 2006. At this point in my
research, I treat “the Israelites” and “the congregation of the Lord” as synonymous terms to describe the theme
of the chosen people, as described in the Hebrew Bible.
1
scholars name the “myth of the empty land”.2 In many ways scholars are now divided when
answering what really happened during the Exile, in the sense of how big a trauma it would
have been and how it would have affected the people.
Some scholars have chosen to broaden the picture by using postcolonial theory as a way of
studying the rhetoric of exilic and postexilic texts.3 One such study, to give an example, uses
present day cases, or from recent history, to show how refuge and forced migration might
affect a person’s sense of self. Postcolonial theory has, in this regard, pointed to how
imperialism, and its practical counterpart colonialism, would affect people in ancient times
just as it has in modern times. As Fernando Segovia puts it: “[p]ostcolonial studies is a model
that takes the reality of empire, of imperialism and colonialism, as an omnipresent,
inescapable, and overwhelming reality in the world”.4 And the postexilic period is truly a
period marked by empire, and as a consequence, imperialism. In the postexilic material, great
empires succeed each other. The Israelites are deported to Babylon, under the rule of
Nebuchadnezzar, and when they return from exile, they do not return to Judah but to the
Persian province of Yehud.5 This has been cause for scholars to name the period as
postcolonial, or rather colonial, since Yehud can be declared a colony in the Persian Empire.
Therefore, Ezra’s mission, and the willingness to create a “new” identity demonstrated in the
text, can be viewed as a kind of “decolonization” of Yehud, and of the Israelite identity. In
order to explain this, some scholars have used the concept of hybridity, made famous by
especially Homi Bhabha, and migration theory to establish what the experience of exile,
refuge and return to the homeland might contribute to how a person would identify, especially
in relation to one’s ethnic identity.6
A review of the recent scholarly work on the Persian period show, however, that focus has
been almost exclusively on the Israelite, and the Israelite people. When naming the Persian
period postcolonial, for example, scholars have done so by naming the Israelites the colonized
people. This is not wrong per se, the Israelites are the colonized group in the biblical
2
See for example Ben Zvi, 2010, pp. 155-168, particularly cited pages, but the entire book deals in many ways
with the mythology and ideology concerning the “empty land”.
3
Ruiz, 2007, for example, uses postcolonial theory and psychoanalytical theory to interpret the prophet Ezekiel,
and why the author uses the kind of rhetoric that he does. In the same anthology Jon L. Berquist interprets the
book of Psalms in a postcolonial setting.
4
Segovia, 2006, p. 37.
5
More on the historical setting of empire, and how Yehud was shaped by imperialism in the next chapter. For
now, this introduction to the topic will have to suffice. Cf. Lipschits, 2006, pp. 24-25.
6
In her dissertation, Katherine Southwood has focused on this particular aspect of identity formation. She
positions herself in the interdisciplinary field of ethnic studies, and brings together social anthropology and
biblical studies in order to explain particularly Ezra’s mission, and his views on the Israelite identity, by
researching what is known as the intermarriage crisis in Ezra 9-10. Southwood, 2012, pp. 186-190.
2
narrative. However, when discussing ethnicity and oppression, I find that it is of equal
importance to look at the other groups that are visible in the material. Some scholars have
done so, when researching the prohibition on intermarriage as described in the books of EzraNehemiah and Malachi, with particular attention on Ezra 9-10. They have analyzed how
“foreign women” are treated in those narratives, and how the rhetoric against such unions as
mixed marriages can be deconstructed.7 In these studies, scholars interpret matters of
exclusion and how boundaries are set up, as well as defining what is deemed “foreign”.
Yet, I wish to focus on how the religious sphere, that which Deuteronomy calls the
congregation of the Lord, seems to correlate to society in general after the Exile. I also wish to
understand how one postexilic source can use a rhetoric that we would brand exclusivist
(Nehemiah 13), whereas another source dated to the same era can be much more inclusivist
(Isaiah 56). In order to interpret this, I too, will use postcolonial theory, as I believe that this is
connected to issues of power and hierarchy.
Moreover, I will use it in an intersectional manner, to be able to grasp the depths of how
exclusion manifests itself in the material I have chosen. In this chapter, therefore, I will focus
on how to use postcolonial theory in relation to ancient material, as well as defining my usage
of intersectional categories. I will also define those intersectional categories. In postcolonial
theory, one of the main concerns is to let the Subaltern speak, and give voice to those who
have not previously been heard.8 The Subaltern in Persian Yehud may be the Israelite people,
or it may be the ones who do not even have a name, or a fixed identity, apart from “stranger”.
Like Uriah Y. Kim says: “as a critical theory, postcolonialism questions Western
epistemology similar to the way feminism has critiqued androcentric knowledge”.9
“Androcentric knowledge”, feminist exegesis has shown, has meant that female characters in
the biblical narratives have been overlooked in the history of reception, gender as an analytic
category has not been researched and women scholars have not been heard. Similarly,
“western epistemology” is apparent both within the interpretations of the texts, as well as
within the academic community of interpreters. My hypothesis is that “western epistemology”
may have contributed to the one-sided focus on the Israelite people, at the expense of the so7
The “foreign woman” as such, in all of the Hebrew Bible, has attracted much scholarly attention, especially
with the advent of feminist and postcolonial theory within biblical studies. Several studies have focused on the
Foreign Woman as she is portrayed in the book of Proverbs. Some scholars have connected the Foreign Woman
in Proverbs with the foreign women in Ezra, Marbury, 2007, and even more so Camp, 2000.
8
Cf. Spivak, 1999.
9
Kim, 2007, p. 161. Kim chooses to call this Western epistemology, without going into detail on how he defines
this philosophical term. I take it to mean the production and consumption of knowledge within Western
academia.
3
called “peoples of the land” (Ezra 10) or the “stranger” (Isaiah 56). I seek to test that
hypothesis, and in this chapter I will discuss how I intend to do so.
Ideological criticism as an exegetical method
The scholar John Barton, on the issue of method, once said “biblical methods are theories
rather than methods: theories which result from the formalizing of intelligent institutions
about the meaning of biblical texts”.10 This is certainly true for how postcolonial criticism
works, at least in my own definition, in biblical studies. The relationship between theory and
practice in this regard can be summarized thus: “postcolonial theory can influence historicalcritical practice and so sharpen and improve the answers and results currently available in
historical-critical readings of these texts”.11 In my view, the best way to accomplish this, to
engage in postcolonial theory and historical-critical practice, is to use ideological criticism.
Quite a few scholars have defined postcolonial biblical criticism as a trajectory of ideological
criticism, or “operating in the mode of ideological criticism”.12 Ideological criticism has been
developed in biblical studies for quite some time, and especially in relation to methods and
theories that deal with power struggles of various kinds.
To start off my discussion, I wish to define how I use the term “ideology”; an ideology can
function as a system of ideas, through which one can understands one’s society as well as the
world at large. Furthermore, it serves to define how society function and how history should
be interpreted. An ideology is connected to a certain social community and its purpose is to
guideline that community, and legitimize the actions of the community within society at large.
An ideology also “creates” collective decisions, in the sense that the individuals within the
community uses ideology as a way of making and justifying decisions that aim to speak for
the entire community.13
In my study, I will incorporate Gale A. Yee's understanding of ideological criticism as a
method, as an interpretative framework, through which one can read the text. 14 Ideological
10
Barton, J (1984), p. 205 quoted in Axskjöld, 1998, p. 2.
Marshall, 2005, p. 94.
12
Punt, 2009, p. 278.
13
Cf. Englund, 1989, pp. 16-17.
14
A definition of ideology as a concept is in many ways futile, since it upholds the ideology of the researcher to
some extent. For example, within Ideological criticism, many scholars define the term “ideological” in its
Marxist meaning of the word. Within biblical studies, this is true for Yee, Yee, 2007, pp. 138-141. She builds her
argument based on Norman K. Gottwald’s definition of the term in relation to biblical studies Gottwald, 1979,
and Terry Eagleton in relation to literary studies Eagleton, 1991.
11
4
criticism aims to clarify a text’s ideology, and Yee does this partly through what she calls an
extrinsic analysis,15 and partly through an intrinsic analysis.16 The extrinsic analysis aims to
examine the sociological and historical conditions that contributed to the ideological context,
as it is presented in the biblical material. The intrinsic analysis aims to examine the actual
text, its rhetoric and how the ideology that the extrinsic analysis revealed, is presented in the
text. To be able to do an extrinsic analysis, methods such as sociological criticism can be
rewarding, but also the methods within the historical-critical paradigm. However, it is
primarily sociological approaches that help to understand the ideological dimension, as
ideological criticism involves examining societal structures, power relations, economic
conditions, et cetera. It questions the social structures and circumstances that appear in the
text, and to some extent those that appear “behind the text”. The intrinsic analysis, on the
other hand, concerns the content and rhetoric within the chosen text. In order to make this
analysis, literary approaches is of essence, such as narrative criticism.
From the perspective of ideological criticism, narrative criticism seeks to identify the
rhetorical strategies that are being used to convey a certain message. One such strategy is
demonstrated in how the postexilic texts I have chosen (Nehemiah 13 and Isaiah 56) relates to
Deuteronomy 23. In order to analyze those strategies further, I think intertextuality serves as
an interpretation key. Intertextuality can be understood as “a relationship between texts,
expressed through a clear reference to a previous text in a later text”. 17 Intertextuality can also
be understood as “language serves both as communicative and reactive in relation to past,
present and future”.18
Postcolonialism as an exegetical theory
Within the field of ethnicity and identity in the Persian period, postcolonial theory has proved
beneficial. This school of thought has been developed in biblical studies for some twenty
years, and has shaped the route that ethnic studies and the Bible have taken. One area that
scholars have focused on deals with how theories that deal with contemporary phenomena can
be applied to ancient texts (see below). This means that the inclusion of postcolonial theories
in biblical studies have been developed in a similar fashion as other postmodern theories, such
as gender criticism and queer theory.
15
Yee, 2007, p. 138.
Yee, 2007, p. 138.
17
Sjöberg, 2006, p. 27.
18
Sjöberg, 2006, p. 27.
16
5
Another similarity shared by different liberation movements and their entry into academia,
with special emphasis on biblical studies, is that they have started out by trying to liberate the
texts, or rather, create new rooms of interpretation, and let voices speak that have previously
been silenced. This is true for feminist exegesis and queer exegesis as well as postcolonial
exegesis. Focusing on the latter, we find that many of the groundbreaking studies have
concentrated on interpreting characters within the biblical texts that are marginalized, such as
“foreigners”. Furthermore, these studies have analyzed how the reception history surrounding
the texts upholds a Western ideal of interpretation, i.e. how marginalized people have been
oppressed both in relation to the biblical text and in relation to how that text has been
interpreted.19
Within academia, that has expressed itself most clearly as silence, or lack of representation in
the academic community. Apart from that, it is also visible in the way research on the socalled Orient has been conducted. The very idea of Orientalism, which Edward Saïd brought
to general attention with his book that bears that title, stems from the academic disciplines
such as Orientalism, Semitic studies et cetera. Saïd argues that the idea of the Orient as
something exotic and strange, ready to be colonized, has been shaped by such academic
disciplines as Orientalism, which has helped turn the imperialistic view of the Orient into
science.20 Another way of how the Bible has been misused and misinterpreted at the expense
of colonized people concerns, among others, texts about the Canaanites, how they not only
mistreats the subjects in the text, but also how those texts have been used in colonial rhetoric,
for example as a way of legitimizing slavery.21
Mapping the field
The exposition of this – how the Bible and biblical interpretation have served many different
functions in upholding imperialism and justifying colonization and oppression – as an integral
part of Western interpretation of the Bible, has been a vital first step in incorporating
postcolonial theory into the field of biblical studies. 22 This subfield is usually called liberation
hermeneutics, also known as vernacular or contextual hermeneutics. This tradition of
19
Some of the pioneering work that emphasize that particular feature of the bible, and biblical criticism, is R.S.
Sugirtharajah, see for example Sugirtharajah, 2001, especially chapter 7.
20
In many ways, Saïd’s entire book Orientalism deals with this, see especially chapter 1, as well as pp. 77, 258.
Saïd, (1978) 2004.
21
See for example Goldenberg, 2009.
22
In their book, Moore, 2006, Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia maps the field of postcolonial biblical
criticism, which follows three main routes: exercises in contextual hermeneutics, studies in imperial contexts and
relations; and engagements with postcolonial theory, the latter thus focusing on extra-biblical material as well.
6
interpretation derives from liberation theology, especially as developed in Latin America. It is
not postcolonial by default, rather it stresses class and sociocultural factors as vital parts of
interpretation. It engages in the decolonization of texts, as Musa W. Dube uses the term, “[as]
literary strategies that resists imperialism”.23 It focuses more on the sociocultural location of
the scholar/interpreter and how one can liberate the text,24 or the subjects within the text.
Quite often studies of this nature also include some autobiographical material.25
Another route that the study of ethnicity, geo-politics and the Bible has taken, takes its shape
in what is sometimes referred to as “empire studies”. This subfield is particularly prominent in
the study of early Christianity and the New Testament, and is less prominent in the study of
the Hebrew Bible. Empire studies focus on, which Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F.
Segovia and point out, that which historic-critical exegetes have done for decades, namely to
search for what is behind the text and what the historical setting is for the texts.26 The
difference lies in the emphasis on empire, and the study thereof as point of departure. Moore
and Segovia mention, however, that scholars dealing with empire studies seem less keen to
add the prefix “postcolonial” to their work.27
Yet another strand in the now versatile field categorized as “postcolonial”, is made up of
studies showing a clearer relation to postcolonial theory, especially how the different theories
have been shaped, invented and defined outside of biblical studies. Scholars operating within
this field are therefore more interdisciplinary in their approach to the biblical text, and
demonstrate greater dependence on theories developed in for example sociology or ethnic
studies to name a few. Furthermore, the implementation of certain key concepts and terms,
such as “subaltern” and “hybrid/hybridity” as well as integrating the work of theorists such as
Spivak, Bhabha and Said figure more prominently in this field. One of the scholars who have
engaged in such activity is Tat-siong Benny Liew,
/…/ who harnesses a broad assortment of theoretical resources, not least those of
Bhabha, to resituate Mark's story of Jesus in its multilayered imperial framework.
Liew is sharply critical of the ideology of the biblical text he is considering. In Liew’s
work, as in Dube’s, postcolonial biblical criticism meshes seamlessly with /…/ that
other recent development in Biblical Studies known as “ideological criticism”.28
23
Dube Shomanah, 2000, p. 50.
Cf. Snyman, 2010, p. 133.
25
Cf. Ruiz, 2007.
26
Moore, 2006, p. 8.
27
Moore, 2006, p. 8.
28
Moore, 2006, p. 9.
24
7
My own position
It is within this last subfield that I position myself and the present study most clearly. To some
degree, I believe that some of the work done in empire studies might serve my purposes,
especially the way that the scholars engaged in the work have adapted, or rather applied, that
which appears to be contemporary concepts to ancient material and phenomena. However, my
hypothesis is that “empire” as a concept do not shape the mindset conveyed in the Hebrew
Bible in the same way as it does in the New Testament. Notwithstanding the fact that many
different empires appear in the texts in the Hebrew Bible, which have bearings on the
characters within the texts as well as the historical settings behind the text, I do not believe
that it is at the forefront when shaping the ideology of the texts. Rather, I find the concept of
“people” to be a much more useful point of analysis. To treat “people”, or “community”, as
analogous to “empire” makes it possible for me to understand the multifaceted view on both
“foreigner” and “Israelite” in colonial Yehud. An effect of tracing the theme of “people” in
postexilic texts means to analyze the concept of being the chosen people as opposed to
standing outside of the “congregation of the Lord”. This is the most prominent theme in all of
the Hebrew Bible, and thus impossible to separate from the ideology that shape the identity of
the Israelite people.
I claim that it is possible to incorporate postcolonial theory within biblical criticism, without
focusing on the history of (Western) reception as a main task. Many a postcolonial biblical
scholar place their work within the colonial setting they themselves experience, experiences
that I do not share (apart from how we all share experiences of the colonial discourse). I focus
on using ethnicity, and related topics, as a main analytical tool, and its connection with power
imbalance and hierarchy. For this reason, I consider my study “postcolonial”, simply due to
the emphasis I place on geopolitics as a main line of investigation. I do believe it is important
to position oneself, and how one uses certain theoretical approaches. However, I do not
believe that it is impossible for me, as a Westerner, to use postcolonial theory as a main
theoretical approach. It makes me ask different questions, and my wish is that I could
highlight how the privileged group operates in the text and thus dissect how the hierarchy that
I detect in the ideology of the text is construed.
Also, I do not wish to position myself according to the fluid categories I wish to deconstruct,
such as gender or race/ethnicity and class. Similarities or differences in these socially ascribed
characteristics might affect the credibility of a researcher, and have been of great importance
in the history of political movements and their entry into academia. Acknowledging them in
8
the first place may be viewed as a standpoint-theory position, since it determines what those
characteristics might be. Opposed to this would be a postmodern view, which seeks to
fragmentize and deconstruct identity – looking at identity in a constructionist way rather than
an essential. Kum- Kum Bhavani discusses this in her article “What’s power got to do with it?
Empowerment and social research”, how – especially in a traditional sense – socially ascribed
characteristics tend to link researcher and researched together because of what they share in
these aspects.29 For example, one could claim that only women can engage in feminist
critique, or one can say that it is more important to analyze and demolish hierarchies and
structures that uphold oppression, no matter the gender of the one doing it. The question of
subjectivity and positionality is very complex, and plays a vital role in research concerned
with power theory. The question is to what extent it affects the results of the study, and to
what lengths it should be discussed in a study in order to make the research credible.30
Postcolonialism and ancient texts
One of the primary questions posed to scholars dealing with biblical studies and culture
theory, or various interdisciplinary approaches concerns the issue of anachronism and
historicity. In relation to postcolonial theory, the main concern is whether it is possible to
analyze colonial discourse without taking the history of colonialism into consideration. How
can one answer questions related to such modern phenomena as ethnicity, the nation state,
imperialism and identity to a setting so different from our own?
I consider this to be a wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, it narrows the field of
biblical studies and suggests that there are set parameters for the discipline of biblical studies,
that does not withstand future development. But mostly, it upholds the Western
epistemological ideal that postcolonial theory wishes to challenge. Such a statement claims
that the aforementioned categories of ethnicity and identity are fixed, and one-dimensional in
meaning. Furthermore, it states that “cultural difference” prevents interpretation of that very
culture. When asking how we can apply models designed to answer questions in our time in a
setting as different as the ancient one, we are saying that “cultural differences”, albeit
temporal rather than geographical cultures, makes it impossible to fully grasp the problem. 31
Also, we are implying that the biblical text was produced in social and political vacuum,
where issues of power and oppression as well as issues concerned with longing to belong
29
Bhavnani, 1990, p. 144.
This is a very difficult question to answer, and hopefully I will be able to find a more suitable answer to this,
in relation to myself as a researcher as my study progresses.
31
Snyman, 2010, pp. 135-136.
30
9
were of no importance to the people living in that particular era. Gerrie Snyman elaborates
further:
Factors that determine identity – like race, gender, economy, age and political power
– influence interpretation. If this is true for the reader of the text, it is equally valid for
the one who produced the text.32
Snyman goes on to say, however, that it is still important to problematize historicity, and take
seriously the danger of becoming anachronistic if it might harm the text’s historical
background. It is not possible to take one’s own sociopolitical position as an interpreter and
adapt it entirely to the world of the text.33 In order to avoid this, I believe it is important to
reflect on why a particular theory is favored over another, and how it facilitates the “openingup” of a certain text, and adds a new dimension to it. For this reason, I find it helpful to reflect
on what kinds of questions a postcolonial analysis might pose to a certain text. Uriah Y. Kim
concludes that postcolonial criticism deals with three levels of the text; the biblical text itself,
the modern biblical scholarship and the interpretation of said text and lastly the world of
contemporary interpreters. My study situates itself within the first level, of the biblical text
itself, where Kim states that postcolonial criticism seeks to answer how group identity is
constructed, and if it is inclusivist or exclusivist, who the Israelites as well as the nonIsraelites were and how they are defined in the text and how the text construct difference
among certain groups – if the difference is real, ideological or imaginary.34 These types of
questions are not specific for the modern concept of identity or imperialism, rather they seek
to understand how these concept vary over time, and how it shapes the world of the text as
well as the text itself.
Intersectional postcolonialism
As I have shown above, this study will focus on matters of exclusion within Yehud, and the
relationship between different groups in the land after the exile. From a postcolonial
standpoint, this means that I will study what happens “in-between”, what Bhabha call the
“liminal space”.35 Traditionally, postcolonialism has defined itself according to the binary
colonizer/colonized. This has been a necessary step in the decolonization process, and a step
32
Snyman, 2010, p. 134.
Snyman, 2010, p. 135.
34
Kim, 2007, p. 168.
35
Bhabha, 1990, p. 299.
33
10
towards creating a voice for those that have suffered due to colonial discourse as well as space
for new insights based on this within academia, and the world at large.
Intersectional categories
My hypothesis is that in the biblical material I have chosen to study, different categories of
oppression, or rather different categories that point to an uneven power balance, intersect in
order to create an ideology of exclusion. In the social constructivist paradigm, identities are
often branded as fluid and non-consistent.
Inequalities exist between diverse social categories – regardless of how imperfect and fluid these
categories may be – and that these inequalities between diverse social categories or social groups
must be positioned as the center of any intersectional analysis.
36
In order to analyze an ideology of exclusion, I will now turn to defining the different
intersectional categories as they appear in the text. I believe that the categories not only serve
as markers for how oppression manifests itself, but also how the text is “Othering” different
groups. Nehemiah and Isaiah alike use concepts of “people”, “foreign”, et cetera regardless of
their exclusivist or inclusivist rhetoric.
Ethnicity as an intersectional category
In the field of exegesis, ethnicity as an interpretive category has become increasingly used and
analyzed. This is especially true for studies concerned with the postexilic era in the Persian
province of Yehud. However, to discuss ethnicity in the ancient context demands defining and
outlining what the term might entail, to make it applicable to a setting so different from the
contemporary context, however – “the elasticity of the expression ‘ethnic identity’ can be
illustrated through scholars’ continual attempts to provide precise definitions of the
phenomenon.”37 I disagree with Marc Brett, for example, who claims that we cannot discuss
ethnicity at all when analyzing ancient texts.38 I am most certain that “ethnicity” functions as
a useful tool when analyzing ideology surrounding “people”. But I do believe that the term
must be analyzed in a different manner when applied to the study of a tribal society culture
based on kinship and orthopraxy rather than the nation state. Postcolonial theory has made us
acutely aware of how fluid a term both ethnicity is, and to some extent race as well. Just as
gender theory have shown that much of what was believed to be biological constructions of
36
Perry, 2009, p. 232.
Southwood, 2012, p. 19.
38
Snyman, 2010, p. 134.
37
11
gender, rather than social constructions, similarly postcolonial theory shows that there is
nothing essential, or primordial, about ethnicity.39 A common definition of ethnicity is the one
offered by Hutchinson and Smith:
a) a common proper name to identify the group; b) a myth of common ancestry;
c) a shared history or shared memories of a common past, including heroes,
events and their commemoration; d) a common culture, embracing such things as
customs, language and religion. e) a link with a homeland; and f) a sense of
communal solidarity.40
In my view, all of these categories are social constructs, rather than a biological given or
pointing to a certain “essence”. By applying them to the view of “the people” as it appears in
the chosen material for this study, it is possible to find how an ideology of boundaries is
conveyed in the text.
Body as an intersectional category
Body is not as fluid a term as ethnicity, however, the rhetoric concerning the body can be very
fluid and described in positive or negative ways, depending on the purposes of the rhetoric of
a given text. I use it to denote issues relating to the body, or bodily functions. I deem it a
useful intersectional category especially due to the mention of crushed testicles in
Deuteronomy 23, and the allusion to that verse in Isaiah 56.
Aside from that, the reason for including “body” as an intersectional category serves two
purposes; firstly, both Isaiah and Deuteronomy mention body parts in relation to being
allowed into the congregation of the Lord. We do not find that being a eunuch, or having had
your testicles removed (Deuteronomy 23:1) constitutes impure behavior, or such, among the
Purity laws in Leviticus 19-20 for example. Therefore it must refer to something else that still
is of importance, perhaps a foreign custom.
The other purpose that the analysis of body serve, is to understand the relation between
“impure actions” and ethnicity.41 In the book of Genesis, we find several “origin myths” that
show a connection between different foreign nations and immoral behavior, or behavior
deemed abhorrent in the legal material. The stories of Moab, Ammon and Canaan and their
39
Denton & Deane, 2010, p. 69.
Hutchinson and Smith, quoted in Esler, 2003, p. 2. Cf. Sparks, 1998, p. 2. This definition is used by for
example Blenkinsopp, 2011, p. 462.
41
The notion of purity in the Hebrew Bible is a complex one, and one that I cannot discuss here. For now, I’ll
suffice to say that I use the word to denote an action that is viewed as abhorrent in some way, especially in
relation to legal material in the Pentateuch in general, and to the Purity laws in Leviticus in particular.
40
12
origin are all connected to incest of some kind (depending on how to interpret the ambiguities
in the Noah story, Genesis 9:20-29). The ideological critical study will help me comprehend
whether these origin myths were, with Berquist’s terminology “read for history” or if they
were “read for identity”,42 and depending on which answer I get, whether the origin myths
were used as a rhetorical tool in the exclusivist agenda.
Religion as an intersectional category
If I wish to understand how the idea of origin myths might have been used to create
boundaries within a specific group identity, I cannot only link it to matters of the body. I also
have to connect it with the notion of orthopraxy, and the willingness to live according to the
Law. This becomes apparent in the Nehemiah text, which alludes to the book of Moses, and
the law of God. It is not as clear in the Isaiah text. A discussion of religion, especially the
view on divine authority, priestly authority and to what extent one should uphold the law, is
vital for my study.
Kinship as an intersectional category
This last category is included mainly to function in relation to the category of ethnicity.
Ancient Yehud, or Judah, was a society different from our own with regards to geo-politics
and how power was structured in society. My hypothesis is that ethnicity has to be connected
to the idea of kinship, in order to be applicable as a term, in my study. Several studies have
focused on the ideal and rhetoric of “the holy seed” in Ezra, as well as the lengthy genealogy
in the book of Ezra.43 This demonstrates the significance blood ties and kinship served in
Judah/Yehud, and how that also is used to create boundaries. In Deuteronomy 23, we find the
connection to kinship in relation to who should not be allowed into the congregation of the
Lord, not even the third or tenth generation. In general, in the field of Hebrew Bible studies,
research have shown that kinship functions as a model for how the rest of the ancient society
should be governed as well. Therefore, the analysis of kinship reflects on the understanding of
both ethnicity and body.
42
Berquist, Identities and Empire: Historiographic Questions for the Deuteronomic History in the Persian
Period, 2010, p.12.
43
Southwood, 2012, is a primary example of this.
13
Works Cited
Axskjöld, C.-J. (1998). Aram as the enemy friend: the ideological role of Aram in the
composition of Genesis - 2 Kings. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Ben Zvi, E. (2010). Total Exile,Empty Land and the General Intellectual Discourse in. In E.
Ben Zvi, & C. Levin (Eds.), The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical
Contexts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Berquist, J. L. (2006). Constructions of Identity in Postcolonial Yehud. In O. Lipschits, & M.
Oeming (Eds.), Judah and the Judeans: in the Persian Period (pp. 53-66). Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Berquist, J. L. (2010). Identities and Empire: Historiographic Questions for the Deuteronomic
History in the Persian Period. In L. Jonker (Ed.), Historiography and Identity
(Re)formulation in Second Temple Historiographical Literature (pp. 3-13). New York
& London: T & T Clark.
Bhabha, H. K. (1990). DissemiNation: Time, Narrative and the Margins of the Modern
Nation. In H. K. Bhabha, Nation and Narration (pp. 291-322). London: Routledge.
Bhavnani, K.-K. (1990). What’s power got to do with it? Empowerment and social research.
In J. &. Shotter (Ed.), Deconstructing social psychology (pp. 141-152). London:
Routledge.
Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). Judeans, Jews, Children of Abraham. In O. Lipschits, G. N. Knopper,
& M. Oeming (Eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period : Negotiating
Identity in an International Context (pp. 461-482). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Brett, M. G. (2009). Decolonizing God: The Bible in the Tides of Empire. Sheffield : Sheffield
Phoenix Press.
Camp, C. V. (2000). Wise, strange and holy: the strange woman and the making of the Bible.
Sheffield : Sheffield Academic Press.
Denton, N. A., & Deane, G. D. (2010). Researching Race and Ethnicity: Methodological
Issues. In J. &. Solomos (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of race and ethnic studies.
London: SAGE.
Dube Shomanah, M. W. (2000). Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. St. Louis,
MO: Chalice.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.
Englund, P. (1989). Det hotade huset: Adliga föreställningar om samhället under
stormaktstiden. Stockholm: Atlantis.
Esler, P. F. (2003, April 3). Ezra-Nehemiah as a Narrative of (Re-Invented) Israelite Identity.
Biblical Interpretation, 11(3-4), pp. 413-426.
Goldenberg, D. (2009). The curse of Ham : race and slavery in early Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam : Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the ancient to the modern . Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
14
Gottwald, N. K. (1979). The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated
Israel 1250-1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Kim, U. Y. (2007). Postcolonial Criticism: Who is the Other in the Book of Judges? In G. A.
Yee, Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (2:a ed., pp. 161-182).
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Lipschits, O. (2006). Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement processes in Palestine and the
status of Jerusalem in the Middle of the Fifth Centurey BCE. In O. Lipschits, & M.
Oeming (Eds.), Judah and the Judeans: in the Persian Period (pp. 19-52). Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Marbury, H. R. (2007). The Strange Woman in Persian Yehud: A Reading of Proverbs 7. In J.
L. Berquist (Ed.), Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian
Period (pp. 167-182). Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.
Marshall, J. W. (2005). Postcolonialism and the Practice of History. In C. &. Vander Stichele
(Ed.), Her master's tools? : feminist and postcolonial engagements of historicalcritical discourse (pp. 93-108). Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.
Moore, S. D. (2006). Postcolonial biblical criticism: beginnings, trajectories, intersections. In
S. D. Moore (Ed.), Postcolonial biblical criticism: interdisciplinary intersections (pp.
1-22). London: Continuum International Publishing.
Perry, G. K. (2009). Exploring Occupational Stereotyping in the New Economy: The
Intersectional Tradition Meets Mixed Methods Research. In M. T. Berger (Ed.), The
intersectional approach: transforming the academy through race, class, and gender
(pp. 229-248). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Punt, J. (2009). Postcolonial Theory as Academic Double Agent? Power, Ideology and
Postcolonial Biblical Hermeneutics in South Africa. In T.-s. B. Liew (Ed.),
Postcolonial Interventions: Essays in Honor of R.S. Sugirtharajah (pp. 274-295).
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
Ruiz, J.-P. (2007). An Exile’s Baggage: Toward a Postcolonial reading of Ezekiel. In J. L.
Berquist (Ed.), Approaching Yehud : New Approaches to the Study of the Persian
Period (pp. 117-135). Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.
Saïd, E. W. ((1978) 2004). Orientalism. Stockholm: Ordfront.
Segovia, F. F. (2006). Biblical Criticism and Postcolonial Studies: Toward a Postcolonial
Optic. In R. S. Sugirtharajah (Ed.), The postcolonial biblical reader (pp. 33-44).
Oxford: Blackwell .
Sjöberg, L. (2006). Genesis och Jernet: ett möte mellan Sara Lidmans Jernbaneepos och
bibelns berättelser. Uppsala: Diss. Uppsala universitet.
Snyman, G. (2010). Identity, power and the World of Ancient (Biblical) Text Production. In
L. Jonker (Ed.), Historiography and Identity (Re)formulation in Second Temple
Historiographical Literature (pp. 133-147). London: T & T Clark.
Southwood, K. (2012). Ethnicity and the mixed marriage crisis in Ezra 9-10: an
anthropological approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15
Sparks, K. L. (1998). Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of
Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Spivak, G. (1999). A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing
Present. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sugirtharajah, R. (2001). The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial, and
Postcolonial Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yee, G. A. (2007). Ideological Criticism: Judges 17-21 and the Dismembered Body. In G. A.
Yee, Judges & Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (2:a ed., pp. 138-160).
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
16