In writing in English about the classical era, is it more appropriate to refer to "Jews" or to "Judeans"? What difference does it make? Today, many scholars consider "Judeans" the more authentic term, and "Jews" and "Judaism" merely anachronisms. In Judeans and Jews, Daniel R. Schwartz argues that we need both terms in order to reflect the dichotomy between the tendencies of those, whether in Judea or in the Disapora, whose identity was based on the state and the land (Judeans), and those whose identity was based on a religion and culture (Jews). Presenting the Second Temple era as an age of transition between a territorial past and an exilic and religious future, Judeans and Jews not only sharpens our understanding of this important era but also sheds important light on the revolution in Jewish identity caused by the creation of the modern state of Israel.
Daniel R. Schwartz is a professor in the Department of the History of the Jewish People and Contemporary Jewry and the academic director of the Scholion Interdisciplinary Research Center in the Humanities and Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Introduction I. Judean Historiography vs. Jewish Historiography: The First and Second Books of Maccabees II. Priestly Judaism vs. Rabbinic Judaism III. From Joseph b. Mattathias, a Priest of Judea, to Flavius Josephus, a Jew of Rome IV. Judeans, Jews, and the Era that Disappeared: On Heinrich Graetz's Evolving Treatment of the Second Temple Period Conclusion Appendix: May We Speak of "Religion" and "Judaism" in the Second Temple Period?