English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 1343/3793 (35%)
Visitors : 2281713      Online Users : 29
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version

    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.taitheo.org.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/6104

    Authors: 賴弘專
    Hung-chuan Lai
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2015-12-29T08:55:25Z (UTC)
    Abstract: This dissertation examines how Ezra–Nehemiah (EN) and Isaiah 56–66(TI) use identity markers to redefine Judean identity in the poly-ethnic context of Persian-period Yehud/Judah by employing socio-anthropological approaches to ethnicity, primarily Clifford Geertz’s primordialism and Fredrik Barth’s constructivism. Geertz sees identity markers as “assumed given[s] of social existence,” which cement group cohesion and are taken as inviolable by the group members themselves. Barth sees identity markers as not necessarily innate features of an ethnic group, but rather “signals and emblems of differences” the group selects from its cultural content in order to assert boundaries in ethnic encounters. This dissertation also draws from archaeological and demographical studies of early Persian-period Yehud to shed light on the intergroup dynamics of the time.

    The study finds that, on the one hand, EN and TI agree that Judean identity is inextricable from certain religious norms and value orientations, including the Jerusalem temple cult, Torah/divine word observance, and Sabbath keeping. On the other hand, the two compositions differ on how these features should structure the Judean community’s interaction with ethnic Others.

    Ezra–Nehemiah ties these features exclusively to a well-defined kinship structure, such as the Judeans (the Nehemiah Memoir) or the returned golah (Ezra 9–10). In Ezra 9–10, this results in rigid ethnic boundaries so that non-Judeans, or even Judeans outside the golah, are seen as “peoples of the lands” and “foreigners.” I argue that the “holy seed” concept of Ezra 9–10 redefines Judean kinship as an identity marker, so that realization of Israel’s religious norms are only possible within the diagnostic boundary of golah genealogy.

    In comparison, Judean descent is not an “emblem of differences” in TritoIsaiah. While not discarding Judean descent, TI envisions that the true seed of Israel will be defined by the critical boundaries of righteousness and other norms that the authors drew from the Sinai covenant, such as Sabbath observance and a YHWH-alone attitude. Specifically, in Isa 56:1–8, Sabbath observance as a diagnostic boundary does not constitute an ethnic divide; rather, it becomes a permeable boundary allowing foreign proselytes to adopt Judean religious
    Appears in Collections:[賴弘專 (Lai, Hung-Chuan )] 教師研究著作

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    Lai_Reconceiving Seed Redefining Foreignness_EN and TI (1) (1).pdf1848KbAdobe PDF1612View/Open

    All items in TAITHEO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback