The views expressed in this article are of the author only and do not necessarily represent those of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
The Idea of “Israel” in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Jewish Identity
Jason A. Staples
Cambridge University Press (2021). 450 pp.
Jason Staples, an Assistant Teaching Professor at North Carolina State, has written a groundbreaking book on the idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism. His major claim is that the term “Israel” when used in the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple Jewish literature refers to: (1) ancient historic Israel, (2) the twelve tribes, or (3) the northern tribes who took the name Israel after the division of the kingdoms who remained in exile (this includes the Samaritans who were also known as Israelites). Thus, when it is used in Jewish Scripture or extra-biblical Jewish material, he argues, the term “Israel” always carries restoration eschatological freight, the concept that God will restore the twelve tribes in the land. Staples documents the significant and widespread, though largely unrecognized, interest in the idea of the regathering of the ten lost tribes and the reconstitution of the twelve-tribe kingdom in Second Temple literature.
In the process of making his argument, Staples clears the deck of many mistaken assumptions, but most especially the one holding up the consensus view on the relationship between the terms “Israel,” “Israelite,” “Jew,” and “Jewish” (Ioudaios) in Jewish antiquity. The conventional view, nearly universally held, is that ancient Jewish authors used these terms interchangeably depending on their audience. When speaking to “insiders” (Jews) they used the theological term “Israel,” but when speaking to “outsiders” (non-Jews) they preferred the more common term “Jew” or “Jewish.” Staples not only convincing debunks the thesis but also presents the “dark” history of the insider/outsider idea by uncovering its anti-Semitic origin in Karl G. Kuhn’s 1938 TWNT article on the word “Israel” (pp. 26–39).
To understand the idea of Israel, Staples shows the clear distinctions Jewish authors consistently maintained between the terms “Jew,” “Hebrew,” and “Israel.” Josephus’s use of the terms in his corpus provides the model Staples observes through the whole of the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Jewish literature. Staples says, “Josephus treats the term ‘Jew’ as though it refers to a subset of people within Israel . . . denoting a person descended from the southern kingdom of Judah or otherwise incorporated into that ethno-religious group . . . The evidence from Josephus suggests the relationship between these terms is partitive, with Jews a subset of the larger category of Israel” (pp. 51–53). While they overlap, they are never synonymous.
With respect to the term “Hebrew,” he states, “[it] functions as a national linguistic term analogous to Hellēnē, referencing the native tongue of the “Hebrew nation” and those associated with it, and when used of contemporary people(s), the term refers to those Ioudaioi ( Jews) or Samaritans still living in Palestine and thus Semitic speakers and readers” (pp. 74–75). In the conclusion he writes: “The evidence is overwhelming that the three terms and the concepts they represent are neither synonymous nor coextensive in the Second Temple period” (p. 339).
The book has three sections divided into twelve chapters (perhaps not a coincidence) tracing a linear argument from the Bible through various genres of Second Temple literature. Staple’s work on the idea of Israel brings rich and necessary clarity to the terms and concepts of Israel, Jew, and Hebrew. Perhaps one of the book’s greatest contributions is revealing the emphasis on the northern tribes of Israel in Jewish eschatological expectations in the Second Temple period completely overlooked by most scholarship:
The prevalence of this concern for the northern kingdom in so much early Jewish literature suggests that although there has been no lack of research on Jewish messianism and eschatology in Second Temple period, most of these studies have neglected a (perhaps the) key element of restoration eschatology. Jewish in this period did not anticipate merely a restoration but a full restoration of all Israel. In keeping with this expectation, Jewish literature in this period consistently distinguishes between Israel (the whole) and the Jews (one part of the whole) (pp. 340–41).
The Idea of “Israel” has significant potential to provoke fresh interpretations of New Testament texts where these terms are used. A candidate for such fresh reading is Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew reports that Joseph was instructed by an angel to leave Egypt and go to the “land of Israel” (2:19). Matthew then confirms Joseph’s obedience by stating that he took the child and his mother and went to the “land of Israel” (2:21). We are then told that instead of going to Judea, they went to north to Galilee because of the reign of Archelaus, Herod’s son. And settled in Nazareth (2:24–25).
Later Matthew tells two stories in which Jesus uses the phrase the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6; 15:24). In Matt 15:24, for example, while Jesus was in the region of Tyre and Sidon in the far north, he told his disciples that he was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” In the context of Matthew, the use of the term “Israel” can reasonably be understood as denoting an “all Israel” restoration eschatological perspective which includes the ten northern tribes. First, consider that both uses of the term are in relation to the northern part of the land. In the first case, Jesus settled in the area that was part of the former kingdom of Israel. In the second, he was seeking the lost sheep of house of Israel in the former northern kingdom. Could the lost sheep be remnants of the former northern kingdom still in exile who still lived in the region? It is possible. Second, and most significantly, Matthew refers to two of the northern tribes by name before quoting a prophesy of Isaiah about their restoration.
When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. Leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali—to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah, “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned” (Matt 4:12–16).
Whether my suggestions here are convincing is beside the matter. It is illustrative of the way The Idea of “Israel” opens new avenues of interpretation. I also wonder if a passage like Rom 11:26 with the most difficult “all Israel will be saved” would be best explained in light of Staple’s argument. It is just a thought.
Joel Willitts has served in pastoral ministry and as a Professor and Chair of the Department of Biblical and Theological Studies at North Park University in Chicago. He holds a PhD in New Testament from Cambridge University. He is a member of the St. Anselm Fellowship of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
