A Simple Turn of Phrase
The term "judaize" (from the Greek, ioudaizein) has, like many other terms, changed in its meaning over time. If you take a more direct definition of the word, from its literal interpretation, then you get an image of a term that speaks of other cultures unifying with the Jews, if you take the term as it is most often used by the Christians you get an image of separation and difference. It is this difference of usage and interpretation that makes words so complicated to understand even when the meanings seem simple. Since it's the Christians that make such use of this word, their interpretation can show much about their relations with the Jews. The Christians use the word ioudaizein to mark themselves apart from the Jews, to make distinct their cultural and primarily religious practices and to generally make less of the Jews. The Christians manage to change the perceptions of the Jews from an individual people to simply a different religion this in many ways changes the identity of the Jewish people as it changes the perception of what is and isn't allowable in the treatment of a people. If you make a people less than you, then it is easy to limit their rights, and freedoms.
To understand a words denotation it is important to know where it comes from and what its literal definition means. "The verb ioudaizein, "to judaize," consists of two elements: the noun iouda- and the verb stem -izen" (Cohen 175) "Verbs in the -izein family have three basic meanings: (a) to give political support (a political meaning); (b) to adopt customs or manners (a cultural meaning), (c) to speak a language (a linguistic meaning)" (Cohen 175-6) It seems that the meaning of the word therefore should be easy enough to understand but when used in different ways, and by different people words turn from their literal meaning.
"By analogy with the other -izen verbs, ioudaizein ought to have three basic meanings: (1) a political meaning, "to give political support to the Judeans" - that is to side with them (and "Judaism" Ioudaismos, ought then to denote this political support); (2) a cultural meaning, "to adopt any of the distinctive customs and manners or the Judeans" and (3) a linguistic meaning, "to speak the language of the Judeans. These are meanings that the word ought to have, but the attested meanings are somewhat different, perhaps because the word is so seldom used by non-Christian authors." (Cohen 179-180)
Why would the use by Christian authors make a difference?
The Christians have specific meanings of the word. "The specifically Christian meanings, in the order of their first attestation are (b) to be Jewish or to become Jewish; (c) to interpret the Old Testament "literally"; (d) to deny the divinity of Christ. (e) to give support to the Jews by adopting their customs and manners." (Cohen 186) Part (e) references parts 1 and 2 of the suggested meanings of the word giving it both a political and cultural connotation, but parts (b-d) serve merely to separate Jews from Christians. These definitions detract from the other definitions found in that they are separatist in design and mark the Jews as decidedly different than the Christians. The previous definitions made it feel as if there was a sense of unity between the Jews and others that were interested in them. The Christian definitions serve to mark difference and set the Jews apart. The Christianization of the Empire makes this idea of separation all the more important because the Jews are not just separate in the eyes of a small sect but in the eyes of the forces in charge. This leads to the development of rules and regulations that make to keep this separation and validate its origins and the results from its enactment.
"In Galatians Paul uses the word unambiguously in a cultural sense: to adopt the customs and/or manners of the Jews. For Paul and his Christian followers these manners and customs belong to the religious sphere." (Cohen 193) By narrowing the customs of the Jews to a religious sphere, their presence as a peoplehood is negated and they are reduced to just a religion rather than an individual peoplehood. This differation between peoplehood and religion makes the difference of being able to claim a land of their own as in days of old. Ancient Israel by having a king, minting coins and developing laws had a presence greater than beliefs they had a physical presence on the land. After being conquered several times by various regimes many of these idealations fell by the wayside, but knowing that the possibility of reclaiming these concepts (something similar to the modern concept of "nation") existed left them as a peoplehood that stood independent even though they were ruled by others. By stripping the concept of "Jewishness" down to a solely religious sphere it diminished the other possibilities of existence. By using the term with its cultural meaning, it shades it in a different way as well, "On the whole, when these verbs bear a cultural meaning, they have a negative valence. Since they describe behavior that is unexpected or paradoxical, they have a nasty or comic edge" (Cohen 179) if this slant is put on a religious orientation then it really could be perceived as a slight to the religious culture on the whole.
Since, "Christian writers regularly associated "judaizing" with the observance of the laws of the "Old Testament" and the denial of the Christian "spiritual reading of Scripture" (Cohen 193) it can be said that they were in a way knocking them for "old fashioned" beliefs rather than the new wave of Christianity. With the Christians being a divergent of the Jewish beliefs, it can be said that there was a new vs old disagreement going on with the Jews standing in the old corner and the Christians in the new. As youth generally mocks age, the new believers picked disagreements with the old believers and mocked them for retaining their beliefs.
What can we make of the term outside the prominent Christian usages? Honestly not much, "The classical and Jewish uses of the term are all ambiguous" (Cohen 193) which leads us to draw our own conclusions. "Two of the Jewish passages associate circumcision with "judaizing" but neither passage is speaking of conversion and both passages see circumcision not as a "religious ritual" but as an "ethnic" practice of the Jews" (Cohen 193) In this sense we can take that the Jewish references are derived from the first set of meanings of the word and don't reference it in the religious sense of the Christians. By retaining their sense of ethnic identity personally it represents their desire for a peoplehood to remain. What about the modern interpretation? "although modern scholars almost always construe the passages with the cultural meaning, the political meaning cannot be excluded." (Cohen 193) By taking the cultural context as primary we make some of the same mistakes as the Christians and deny the Jewish people their sense of ethnic identity and their peoplehood.
This word is very complex because its meaning is open to interpretation. The Christians have made their own interpretations on the word and their concept has become the predominant viewpoint. This viewpoint reflects the relations between the Jews and the Christians, and what it shows is not positive, it strips the Jews of their identity as an individual peoplehood or "nation" and reduces them from the ancient ideas of independence to the concept of a different religion. While religious separation is in part what the point of the Jewish people is, in their past they were an independent "nation" with a king, an economy, etc, in addition to a set of religious beliefs. With the rise of the Christians to prominence, it changes what it means to be Jewish, decided in part by the Christians use of terminology and opinion. With this degradation from "nation" to religion to makes it easier to place restrictions on the Jews such as follows from the 300's to the 600's reducing the Jew's rights in everything from religious observances to even the ability to be seen in public. It was stripping their independence and altering their identity that made it easier to perpetuate these acts and change the perceptions of the Jewish people.
Citations from: The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties
By Shaye J. D. Cohen