This study compares dynamics in the contestation of history and identity between Paul to post-1994 white Afrikaners in South Africa. In reference to Paul, I am interested in how the followers of the nascent Hellenistic Gentile Christian movement claimed legitimacy as the true Jews, usurping the monopoly of the identity ‘true Jews’ from the Jews, who believed that they alone, stand to claim the Abrahamic promise. Instead, Paul contested the Jewish history and identity, claiming that his Gentile Christians were, in fact, the true Jews – how so? The analysis shall be juxtaposed, providing a discursive analysis to the Afrikaners, who regularly receive claims that they do not belong to South Africa. Specifically, I look into how they contest the South African oral history, claiming that in fact, they are legitimate and the original inhabitants. The study notes that in both cases, identity is constructed through the contestation of history and identity. Thus, the comparison shall be narrowed down to how history is variably, contested for identity formation. Though living within the same locale, the different social groups interpret history differently and variously, appeal to different conspicuous figures and events as their identity markers.
History is contested not from facts, but from how it is ideologically interpreted – its discourse. When I mention ‘not from facts’, I mean that there is no objective history, rather the subjective recollections based on identities – its historiography. This study, initially, developed from conversations with my Afrikaner colleagues over a glass of wine in Pretoria East, South Africa.
In social memory studies, Maurice Halbwachs (
Thus, to remember the past is an active interpretative process in which a part of the past is placed at the service of present needs – the past is subjectively retold in the present for identity formation (Schwartz
Burton Mack (
During and soon after the death of Jesus (
According to E.P. Sanders (
Arguably, the recent and current discussions concerning Jewish-Gentile relations have not discussed the contestation of history as a process of identity formation, instead the focus, as evidenced by the writings of James Dunn (
In contesting history, Paul categorically states: ‘For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh’ (Phlp 3:3). Importantly, the above verse can be regarded as summing up how Paul was contesting the Jewish history and in the process bolstering the identity of his community. The verse has three parts:
‘For we are the circumcision’: This is clearly an identity marker in which Paul is saying his Hellenistic Gentile Christians are the true Jews. Thus, Paul appears to be contrasting and contesting the history and identity ‘true Jew’, as it was commonly known. Being a Jew in a proper sense was defined by blood or ancestry, that is, a person was supposed to be able to trace one’s bloodline to David and Abraham. The law was seen as the overt ethical identity marker. In contrast, Paul replaces the bloodline and the laws with the spirit and traces the identity of his community, not from Moses but to Jesus. In the process, Paul accuses the Jews for not understanding the meaning of ‘circumcision’, arguing that in its originally intent, circumcision was supposed to be a spiritual marker which identifies the Jews as God’s people. Thus, for Paul, the internal spiritual marker takes precedence over the overt external mark of circumcision. In this regard, the Gentiles who now receive the Abrahamic promise by faith, are equally and legitimate Jews and heirs to the promise, by faith.
The second part of the verse further describes the identity of the new Israel (Gentile-Hellenistic Christians), saying, ‘who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus.’ In Romans 3, Paul emphasised, saying:
No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. (v. 29)
Lastly, Paul says: ‘Put no confidence in the flesh.’ Paul’s notion of a spiritual Israel received more attention when he addressed the Galatians (6:13), saying: ‘Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh.’ He disregarded the Jewish identity based on the law and circumcision, saying: ‘For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation’ (Gl 6:15). Seemingly, Paul is arguing that both the Jews and the Gentiles should transcend their present ethnic confirms, to aspire to a high identity, which is a new creation. Aspiring to a new identity of ‘new creation’ puts both the Jews and the Gentiles at a similar level – they all need to transform from their current identities to embrace the true and the new identity based on Jesus.
Clearly, Paul is contesting the Jewish history and the identity ‘Jew’; by spiritualising and internalising it to fit the diasporic and heterogeneity nature of his Gentile Hellenistic community (Carter
The point is not facts or truth, but rather, the discourse around which narratives are presented. I mean, when Paul claims that true Israel are those who are spiritually marked, based on Abraham and Jesus and that the Law and ancestry must not be taken as identity markers, he is contesting how the Jews interpreted their history and identity. Thus, to dispute Paul’s historiography is to miss the point which is, identity is not created from facts, but rather, from ‘keying’ the present to the past figures and narratives, making the past subject to the reconstructions. It is commonly accepted that Paul narrates and interprets salvation events in a particular way, ‘he himself writes history and constructs a new religious world’ (Schnelle
I found the manner in which Paul discursively claimed the identity of his Gentile Christian communities illuminating; one that provides interesting analogies to how identities are constructed through contestation of history in South Africa. South Africa has more than two ethnicities, but historically contention mostly arises, when the majority black South African people refer to their white neighbours, whom they occasionally label as foreigners – a labelling which the white Afrikaners believe is very unfortunate. The debate did not start now; it is as old as when the two groups met. I observed parallels and analogies in the way history is reinterpreted in the current identity context in South Africa – with specific reference to the Afrikaners – to the discussion above about Paul and the emerging Gentile Christian community during the 1st century CE. Specifically and arguably, the way Paul argued and contested the Jewish history and identity, echoes parallel patterns to how the Afrikaners contest history to redefine their identity. Again, the merits of the analogy and the comparison must not be verified from a historical trajectory, but from how narratives create imagined communities; our collective identity, which we are passionately ready to defend.
My discussion was with three Afrikaner men (Mr Geldenhuis, Mr Van Vuuren, and Mr De Bruin), who, in my analysis seem to represent a larger constituency with their views. In conversation with Mr Geldenhuis, he vehemently states that Afrikaner people are, equally, the original inhabitants of South Africa, because of what I shall label as the ‘empty land myth’ (Marks
What is important to this study, is not the veracity of oral or written history about the claims, but rather how history is contested for identification – its discourse. Like Paul, who denied physical marks as identity markers, Mr Geldenhuis contests physical geography as basis of identity. If circumcision was not the identity marker to Paul this meant, being a Jew had another connotation – spiritual identity. Similarly, to Mr Geldenhuis, if the land was empty, South Africans are defined, not by physically boundaries but by other means. Why does Mr Geldenhuis want to define their identity around the ‘empty land myth’? From a theological point of view, it evokes the biblical narratives about Abraham and Moses, thus seeing South Africa as a God-given land. Religious myths have a tendency to ratchet identity construction from ordinary history to metaphysical territory – ‘God gave us the land’. By theologising and mystifying identity, Mr Geldenhuis is able to accentuate his emotional attachment to the land of South Africa, as something to die for. Mr Geldenhuis was able to contest history and identity from two fronts –claiming that the land was empty and that God preordained the occupation, and by so doing, secondly, he disputes other histories and claims to land. Indeed, he is a true South African.
Importantly, Geldenhuis’s friend, Mr Van Vuuren says South Africa is for everyone, thus removing physical identity markers instead, arguing from a metaphysical point of view –similar to saying ‘I am South African because I love South Africa’. Mr Van Vuuren’s argument overlaps with that of Paul who, in contesting history and identity internalised the identity of his imagined community. As Paul says, the real Jews are not those with physical marks, but those who, inwardly and spiritually follow God. Mr Van Vuuren’s basic argument is that, those who love the country need no documentation instead, they show it through their character –they do not steal, commit murder and they respect the laws of the country. When Mr Van Vuuren was speaking, I was reminded of Paul, who makes almost a similar statement, in Romans 9:6, ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.’ Similarly, by listening to Mr Van Vuuren, one can say that not all South Africans are indeed South African – that is, if they vandalise property and commit all kinds of crime. Through their deeds they make South Africa not to be South Africa, as much as Paul would say, when you are sinning, though one is circumcised, the mark of circumcision is invalidated. Noticeable, both Mr Van Vuuren and Paul, internalised identity. Like Paul, Mr Van Vuuren lists the nationalistic moral conducts of being a good neighbour or citizen, which to Paul, would come out as ‘the fruits of the Spirit’ (Gl 5, 6).
For a moment, I thought that Mr Van Vuuren wanted me – a foreigner, to feel accommodated, which I did. Internally, I felt, though a Zimbabwean, I pay tax, I am a morally upright, peace-loving person – thus looking around the restaurant for a moment, I felt that I was a better South African through my deeds – morally a better South African than some who claim their identity based on their nationality. Importantly to this study, Mr Van Vuuren disputed nationality based on ethnicity, shifting it to morality. As Paul says in Galatians (6:13): ‘Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh’. If Paul were to speak today to South Africa he would say, ‘South Africans want all foreigners to acquire identity documents, for one to be called a South African, instead, you are South Africans by heart’. Mr Van Vuuren made me think that like Paul, he is internalising identity, contesting identity based on ethnicity for something better. Like Paul who thinks of a ‘new creation’, there are people, like Mr Van Vuuren, who contest identity from a moral perspective. A moral or spiritual identity, to Paul is a ‘new creation’, gained by transcending current ethnic categories making Paul strive each day for moral perfection – ‘Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own’ (Phlp 3:12). Clearly, it appears that Paul believed in the continuous moral improvement or perfection of humanity, which perhaps could be attributed to the influence of Stoic philosophy. Paul believed that better citizenship comes from internal regeneration based on the indwelling
I also observed that my colleagues selectively build their identity and history from particular figures in the South African history. Contrary to my black friends, who when referring or talking in the context of their economic situations, are quick to remind me about liberation heroes such as Steve Biko and Thabo Mbeki, my white friends build their history and identity based on Nelson Mandela and Koos De la Rey. This is important – why these historical figures and not the rest? As we noted with Paul, who would go back to Abraham and not Moses, identity is contrasted around people and events that sympathise and identify with our experiences. To Paul, who wanted a less legalistic Christian movement, Abraham was the best ancestor to discursively craft an identity narrative for the emerging faith community.
To Mr De Bruin, Mandela symbolises unity and forgiveness. Mr De Bruin reveals that he loves his fellow black countrymen, but he is very afraid – a fear which stems from crime and fear of revenge. Like Abraham who symbolised inclusivity, Mandela represents an inclusive South Africa, one where people live in peace and tolerance. The feeling of fear expressed by Mr De Bruin makes him to restrict his identity around the other person in history – Koos De la Rey. I had heard about De la Rey from a colleague at work – Kobus Kok, but it was time to be schooled in history. General Koos De la Rey (1847–1914) was a Afrikaans military strategist during the Second Boer War. The Second Boer War represents the lowest morale index among the Afrikaner people from losing their superior identity to the British colonialists. But why would Mr De Bruin return to one of the lowest moments in history as his identity marker? His sense of insecurity makes him identify with Koos De la Rey in reviving nationalistic sentiments – ‘we shall overcome’. Similarly, Du Plessis (
This study notes that identity is built from narratives, which regularly deploy or refer to history. However, history is not stable; it is no truth, instead, history is refashioned, recrafted to answer the present needs. History is remade by the needs of the present, thus deployed to sustain a particular conviction – a discourse.
With regard to Paul, the manner in which he compares Moses to Abraham was meant to develop an identity narrative that finds support from particular redeployment of the past. For example, mostly in Galatians, the Law and Moses are cast as impediment to grace. Importantly to this study, Paul is not emphasising grace for theological truth, but for ideological expediency – to make a point that his Hellenistic Christians are true heirs of the promise through faith, like Abraham. In Paul, history serves the present.
Whenever identities are constructed and defended, history is deployed. With regard to South Africa, my Afrikaner friends recast the past, contesting its interpretation to claim their identity. As they claim, in the 1600s, South Africa was an empty land – a claim that my black friends are ready to dispute. However, the important point is not whether the statement is true or false, but what identities it intends to build. If the land was empty, no single ethnicity can claim it as original inhabitancy. It therefore means, there are other identity categories that must be used. For example, South Africa is for all people, but not all are South Africans, some are less South African by not abiding by the laws of the country. Nonetheless, views articulated by Mr Geldenhuis, Mr Van Vuuren and Mr De Bruin represent each in their own way ‘a mind-set shaped from the worldview shared by the beholder’ (Loba-Mkole
From the study, therefore, the various versions of the past and collective identities are built from narratives, told as a consensus story, aiming to prop up our particular image – our identity as a people. Equally, past figures make sense to us from a meta-narrative, in so far as they represent particular ideas inculcated by the community.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
The discussion took place on the 14 January 2015, at Atterbury Value Mart, Spar Ribs restaurant. The discussion was tape recorded and transcribed for analysis. The surnames of the participants are: Geldenhuis, De Bruin and Van Vuuren. Only the surnames shall be provided as per agreement with the participants.
The