Identifying the Problem
In the final moments leading to the crucifixion, Jesus is cast in a lead role. Surrounded by a Roman cohort, reed in hand, and a crown of thorns on his head, he is paraded into the Praetorium. With theatrical flair, Roman soldiers kneel before Jesus who is propped up, dressed in a scarlet robe. They beat and berate him, exclaiming, “Hail, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων!” until he is bloodied and bruised. Once the Roman soldiers are satisfied, the scene shifts; they strip him of the robe and put on his garments, but the show is not over. The soldiers enlist Simon of Cyrene to carry a cross upon which the formal charge is written. The stage is set—garments are divided, heads wag, and insults are hurled. At the ninth hour, in a climactic moment, the one convicted as ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων utters a loud cryptic cry in his regional dialect of Aramaic. But no one around him seems to understand what he says.
In Matthew’s passion narrative, the ethnoracial identity of Jesus comes into sharp focus. The repetition of the title ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (“King of the Judeans”1) in the trial scenes that comprise the passion narrative accents its pivotal role. Jesus’ ethnoracial identity as a marginalized Judean is reiteratively cited at key points, serving as the basis for his interrogation before Pilate the governor (Matt 27:11–14), torture by the Roman soldiers (Matt 27:27–30), and mockery from the Judean leaders (Matt 27:41–43). The title is publically displayed as a formal charge above the cross—a detail that is attested in all four Gospels (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19).2 Made to hang from a Roman tree under a derogatory banner—Οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (“This is Jesus: King of the Judeans” [Matt 27:37])—Jesus’ gruesome execution is fraught with ethnoracializing implications. Despite the explicit use of terminology, previous scholarship has understood the title curiously in non-ethnoracial ways.
The present book takes this peculiar omission in the history of interpretation as its point of departure. But rather than only filling the lacuna of an ethnoracial reading, it is also necessary to pose a more fundamental ideological question that interrogates the pattern in the larger disciplinary context of modern biblical scholarship.3 Therefore, the main question that orients this research is: How and why are dominant readings of Jesus’ crucifixion as ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων in Matthew’s passion narrative rendered in non-ethnoracial terms? To develop an answer, it is necessary to probe the history of readings that constitute the non-ethnoracial pattern as well as the history of reading strategies that produce it. Yet because the terminology of race and ethnicity is not self-evident but highly contested, each with complex histories in their own right, it is necessary to clarify the use of these terms at the very outset.
A Preliminary Definition of Race and Ethnicity
In this book , race /ethnicity is theoretically defined in two ways as discourse and dialectic—or, better, as a discourse that functions within a dialectic.4 As a discursive category, race/ethnicity is not a static or stable entity that identifies essential and ontological differences between ethnoracial groups. Strictly speaking, the biological basis of race has been debunked as a modern myth that has fueled scientific racism.5 Instead, it is a fluid discourse of representations—a way of speaking to, from, and within individual and group differences in constant flux and under constant negotiation. On this understanding, individuals are not born in possession of an intrinsic racial attribute that confines them to the boundaries of a racial group. Rather, they are racialized into being. In other words, race/ethnicity is not a noun but a verb that signals a meaning-making process, a strategic coding of human difference. To draw on J. L. Austin’s speech act theory, race/ethnicity is not a constative utterance that faithfully describes reality; it is a performative utterance that brings about the very thing to which it refers—the veritable formation of the ethnoracial-other.6
As a dialectical category, race/ethnicity is an ideology that structures the formations of power between dominant groups and minority groups. More specifically, it is a discourse whereby the self attributes superiority to some and inferiority to others on the basis of ethnoracial signifiers. Here, the term “race” most often refers to biological markers such as phenotypes, while the term “ethnicity” most often refers to cultural markers such as language. These terms, while not exactly identical, share histories that are very much intertwined. During the latter part of the twentieth century, “race” fell out of favor as “ethnicity” became the preferred term in anthropological and sociological study. But the change in terminology did not imply material differences between the two. Rather, it signaled a methodological shift in the humanities and social sciences from essentialist to constructivist approaches.7 Fundamentally, however, the discourse of race and the discourse of ethnicity fall on the same continuum; one cannot be examined without the other. For this reason, I use both terms interchangeably and in combination in this book (e.g., race/ethnicity, ethnoracial, ethnoracialization) as a reference to their overlapping and interconnected histories as signifying discourses of power.8
A central theoretical axiom underlying the book’s argument may be enumerated in light of this definition of race/ethnicity. The discourse of race/ethnicity always functions with a dialectic of dominant-minority formations; therefore, the logic of the non-ethnoracial must also be subject to critique.9 It is not possible to speak intelligibly about what defines ethnoracial identity without also examining what simultaneously defies and paradoxically resists ethnoracial definition. Stated positively, that which is regarded as ethnoracial must be examined alongside that which is regarded as non-ethnoracial, for the two are intimately and organically connected. The crucial importance of this theoretical insight is gaining more recognition and traction in recent New Testament scholarship. For instance, there is an increasing number of minority biblical scholars who draw on insights from ethnoracial theory, whiteness studies, and minority criticism for biblical interpretation.10 Similarly, there is an increasing number of dominant biblical scholars who are doing the same.11 By approaching race/ethnicity as a discourse that functions within a dominant-minority dialectic, I hope to contribute to the burgeoning trend of taking the critical intersection of race/ethnicity and biblical interpretation more seriously into account.12
Preview of the Argument
The argument of the book works on two levels (i.e., exegetical and methodological), with the primary goal of critiquing the dominant narrative and presenting an alternative reading of Matthew’s passion narrative. A secondary goal is to identify a critical vocabulary and framework of analysis to decode the politics of race/ethnicity implicit in the history of interpretation. Both aims are reflected in the chiastic arrangement of what follows: Chap. 2 examines the logic of dominant non-ethnoracial readings of Matthew’s passion narrative; Chap. 3, the logic of dominant deracialized reading locations; Chap. 4, the logic of minority racialized reading locations; and finally Chap. 5, the logic of a minority ethnoracial reading of Matthew’s passion narrati...