The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal

by Yonatan Adler

A groundbreaking new study that utilizes archaeological discoveries and ancient texts to revolutionize our understanding of the beginnings of Judaism

Throughout much of history, the Jewish way of life has been characterized by strict adherence to the practices and prohibitions legislated by the Torah: dietary laws, ritual purity, circumcision, Sabbath regulations, holidays, and more. But precisely when did this unique way of life first emerge, and why specifically at that time?
 
In this revolutionary new study, Yonatan Adler methodically engages ancient texts and archaeological discoveries to reveal the earliest evidence of Torah observance among ordinary Judeans. He examines the species of animal bones in ancient rubbish heaps, the prevalence of purification pools and chalk vessels in Judean settlements, the dating of figural representations in decorative and functional arts, evidence of such practices as tefillin and mezuzot, and much more to reconstruct when ancient Judean society first adopted the Torah as authoritative law.
 
Focusing on the lived experience of the earliest Torah observers, this investigative study transforms much of what we thought we knew about the genesis and early development of Judaism.

Genres: History, Religion, Judaism, Jewish, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies, Ancient History

384 pages, Hardcover

First published November 29, 2022

Reviews

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scholarly works about the Bible can approach the text in a variety of ways. Some are interested in when the work, as we know it, came into being. Others are fascinated by the various strands they see in the text and attribute them to different authors. Two recent works offer different approaches. In “The Origins of Judaism: An Archeological-Historical Reappraisal” (Yale University Press), Yonatan Adler is not interested in the origin of the text, but rather when the actual practice of Judaism began. Ronald L. Eisenberg, on the other hand, does focus on the text, but offers a different slant: “In the Beginning: Parallels between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Accounts” (KTAV Publishing House) compares religious/civil legal writings from other Near Eastern cultures of the time to see what influence they might have had on the biblical text.
See the rest of my review at https://www.thereportergroup.org/past...

[Jonathan Dine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredibly well written and clear book showing the earliest possibility for a general observance of the Torah beginning in the 2nd century BCE. Adler clearly marshals both archeological and textual evidence for his claim while being very careful and precise to not the date the origins of the Torah itself. I would have liked slightly more context and discussion of the archeological findings in Judea prior to the 2nd century and perhaps greater discussions of some his points in his conclusion regarding the Hasmoneans this is a great book that anyone interested in Judaism and it’s practices should read.

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the clearest, best-written academic books I've read, not to mention incredibly well-argued, possibly field-disrupting.

[Israel Drazin · Rating 5 out of 5]

When did Jews begin to observe Biblical Laws?

The question of when did Jews begin to observe the practices and prohibitions of biblical laws is one of the most important yet thorniest questions that has bothered scholars for centuries. While traditional Jews believe their ancestors accepted and practiced Torah laws since the time of Moses, there is no clear statement that this occurred in the Bible itself. Associate Professor Yonatan Adler of the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Ariel University in Israel addresses this age-old question. His reply, supported by multiple sources, is contained in his 2022 book, “The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological Historical Reappraisal,” a scholarly, easy-to-read Yale University Press book. Several hundred interesting notes follow the 236-page book in 64 pages, a bibliography of 30 pages, and an extensive, helpful index of 34 pages.
Adler’s goal in this very informative and eye-opening book is not to examine when, why, and by whom the Torah was written or answer any other theological question. His focus is on the behavior of the Judean society, when we can identify the time when Judeans observed the Torah. Many scholars argued previously that the early Judeans did not obey Torah law, but they did not identify when Jews accepted the Torah as a director of their lives. For example, I wrote in my book “The Tragedies of King David,” “Scholars contend that there are many indications in the book of Samuel that the book’s author knew nothing about Moses’s Torah, and may not have known about the biblical books of Joshua and Judges. I identified thirty-nine such indications in my two prior books about Samuel and David. There are an additional eighteen in this volume, fifty-seven in all.” In later books on the Bible, I showed more examples.
Adler examines thirteen practices, dietary laws, ritual purity, artful portrayals of humans and animals, tefillin and mezuzot, the synagogue, circumcision, the Sabbath prohibitions, the Passover sacrifice, the Festival of Unleavened Bread, fasting on the Day of Atonement, residing in booths on Sukkot, the four species, and having a continually lit seven-branched menorah in the Jerusalem temple. In each case, he begins by telling the law as specified in the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, examines the evidence for the practice or prohibition in the first century CE, both writings by Jews and non-Jews of this time, such as Philo, Josephus, Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, Roman writers, as well as archeological finds of the period, such as coins, pottery, buildings, and bones, and continues backward in time to earlier available writings and archeological evidence before the first millennium, until there is no evidence that people observed these practices,
Adler found that “the earliest surviving evidence for a widely practiced Judean way of life governed by the Torah never predates the second century BCE.” The evidence suggests that the early Hasmonean leadership who rescued the Judean nation from Syrian Greek control, legitimized the Pentateuch as the authoritative law and fashioned themselves as the “restorers” of an ancient system of divine law. They went so far as to convert the Semitic people they conquered forcibly. They were the first who converted people. There was no need for conversion previously. The Hasmonean family led the revolt against the Syrian Greeks around 167 BCE. The last of the brothers, Simon, became high priest and leader of the Judeans in 142 BCE when he established an independent country led by his descendants until the Hasmonean state fell to the Roman general Pompey in 63 BCE.
While the lack of evidence of the Judean observance of the Torah before the Hasmonean era could suggest the Torah did not exist before that time and the tradition that the Torah was present since the time of Moses is untrue, Professor Adler does not say this. He wrote that he was only interested in this study on when the Judean population observed Torah practices and prohibitions. We readers are left to decide this issue ourselves. It is possible that despite the majority not making Torah the guide to their lives until the mid-second century BCE, a minority of Jewish ancestors, perhaps even a sizable minority, accepted a Torah life since very ancient times. There are also many other possibilities.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Origins of Judaism

Simply a great book. Adler’s look at archaeological and related evidence for when various practices commanded in the Torah of the Pentateuch became widespread is simple, and has more and more data to be researched today.

First, the exact phrasing above? Adler uses “Pentateuch” for the five books “of Moses.” Torah is used for the “teaching,” which often was law or “nomos,” within them, to then ask where it was discussed literarily centuries later, ie, Christian New Testament, Qumran, Josephus, apocrypha, etc. That’s his terminus ad quen. Therefore, he does not use the Mishna; sayings attributed to 1st century CE rabbis by the second century may not hold up.

Then, as noted, he also looks at archaeological digs and related for their evidence.

He looks at several areas of Torah: Dietary laws, ritual purity, “graven images,” tefillin and mezuzoth, all of which get longer treatment, the synagogue’s existence, and a group of items under “miscellaneous practices.”

The conclusion he has is that based on the “lived experience” of practitioners of what became Judaism, none of these were widespread before the start of the Hellenistic area, and in most cases, it wasn’t until Hasmonean times. In fact, that’s his summary — that the Torah as prescriptive not descriptive was pushed and promulgated as a Hasmonean unity document or constitution of sorts.

Notes below are my observations and stimulations, as well as what I learned. (Most all if it is behind spoiler alerts, as this is even longer than Israel Drazin’s review!

===

DIETARY

I’d already heard about the catfish bones outside Jerusalem in approximately Davidic times. 20 percent or more of all fish bones.


RITUAL PURITY

The ritual purity chapter was great, and especially the immersion bath subsection. Adler shows this likely didn’t become widespread until the start of the 1st century BCE. He said it may have been aided from the start of the Hellenistic world by the rise of its hip bath. The photos involved, plus quotes from Josephus as well as the New Testament? Make clear how big of a deal this was.

I also think of Paul calling out Peter for his dining hypocrisy. Maybe this was instead a “weaker brother” thing on Peter’s part, where he was OK with ignoring ritual purity concerns when by himself with Gentiles, but didn’t want to upset other Jewish Jesus-believers when they were around.

==

GRAVEN IMAGES
This includes mosaics and such like the famous synagogue at Dura-Europus, which is well outside the end date of Adler’s focus. Mainly, though, beyond figurines to Yahweh or other goes, the focus is on human or animal depictions on coinage. Pre-Hasmonean times, the circulation of coinage with images, even if not human ones, is attested in the land of Israel; Adler shows examples from Ptolemaic times.

===

TEFILLIN/MEZUZOTH
Tefillin. Per the various texts that were commanded to be bound, could a little box really hold that much?

Not sure why Adler thinks Exodus 13:1-16, the consecration of the firstborn, is inappropriate for a mezuzoth to be nailed to a door, only a tefillin.


SYNAGOGUE
Attested for 1 CE by Philo, Josephus, archaeology. One excavation puts one synagogue as having an earlier phase in 1 BCE. 3 Mac MAY attest to earlier. Philo and Josephus referencing or citing Augustus MAY attest to 1 BCE, too. That's it. Nothing at Qumran.


MISCELLANEOUS PRACTICES
First is circumcision. Adler notes that outside the Pentateuch, Philistines are called "uncircumcised." But, no indication is given as to why Israel was, nor is it noted that other West Semites were as well. And, they’re the only people identified as such outside of it.
Second is Sabbaths. Adler notes a 1 Maccabees exemption for self-defense but tale in 2 Maccabees appears to reject this exemption, the Jews killed in the cave. Sabbath restrictions are outside of the Pentateuch in the Tanakh as far as any acts being barred on Sabbath, except Nehemiah, who talks about people treading grain and such, and in another verse, promises to bar the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath, plus a lesser verse from Jeremiah. Ezekiel talks about profaning Sabbaths, but no details; ditto 2nd Isaiah. In both cases, this appears about Sabbaths as religious holidays, not specific proscriptions.
Sabbath work restrictions were an intense matter of deliberation at turn of eras, especially with Qumran barring bad words and thoughts, too. Adler that before the 2nd century BCE, there's not even clear evidence of a 7-day week for Jews and that Sabbath was more likely a general religious holiday; see above on Ezekiel and 2nd Isaiah. And, even if it were, clearly it wasn't being generally observed much before Hasmonean times.
The third is Passover and Unleavened Bread. Unleavened Bread festival of some sort is referenced in Joshua. 2 Chronicles 30 talks about Hezekiah having a big Passover blowout and TWO seven-day periods after that. 2 Kings 23 talks about Josiah’s Passover, with more in 2 Chronicles. Elephantine writings talk of Passover circa 420 along with Unleavened Bread, but no details on observances.
Next? Yom Kippur. No Tanakh cites outside the Pentateuch. One Josephus reference and a couple of apparent Qumran ones. 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah, by silence, are unaware of it, as both talk about Sukkoth, which comes just after, without reference to Day of Atonement. Ditto Ezekiel. This is not mentioned in New Testament gospels, either, not even in John, which mentions the three great festivals. Hebrews does have an apparent citation in Chapter 9, but it’s a reference to the priestly action of the Pentateuch and not anything communal, not even the Leviticus 16:29 or 23:27 actions. Adler misses a small trick by not noting that.
That means that Yom Kippur as observed today is almost certainly Rabbinic in the “push” for it, and not Hasmonean, and likely was a substitute with the destruction of the Second Temple, to go beyond Aharon.
Sukkoth is in Temple Scroll and Jubilees, and may well have been actually practiced in early Hasmonean times. Neh. 8 has the one reference outside the Penteteuch, though its "four species" greatly differ from Leviticus.
Menorah? The Pentateuch-prescribed version has no attesting elsewhere pre-Maccabean.

REASSESSMENT
Goes beyond the data of earlier chapters to analysis and conclusions.
Persian era
First, Adler notes Ezra and Nehemiah are both composite texts. Then rejects on various grounds that their narratives reflect the idea that the Pentateuch was established based on Achaemenid decree. Next he looks at actual archaeological and epigraphic evidence from this area about Judeans in the heimat, in Babylon, and in Elephantine.
Athena identified with Anat by West Semites. Anat venerated at Elephantine. Also notes Persian era Yahweh coin with second deity on it. Both these coins also NOT aniconic!
Elephantine writings do not have the word "Torah" or its Aramaic. Nor do they reference "Moses." Inhabitants there swore oaths to other gods. One was Anathyahu.
Notes that after Egyptian priests destroyed this temple in 410, the Jews there asked for help in rebuilding it from the Jerusalem priests, which surely undercuts the "one place" idea.
Babylonian Judeans ca 525-475 also appear to know nothing of a Pentateuch.

Early Hellenistic, to the revolt
Adler notes that 1st century BCE Diodorus Siculus was apparently truly citing from now-lost 4th century BCE Hecataeus of Abdera (not Hecataeus of Miletus as DS claimed), but that it was not from Hecataeus alone and there's little to glean.
Letter to Aristeas? On it as evidence, scholars date it no earlier than the start of the Hasmonean era. The Pentateuch was likely translated 3rd century BCE. Adler notes that translator(s) chose "nomos" for "torah" rather than "didache" or "didaskalia." Says not to read too much into this.
"Traditions of the ancestors" cited in letters and proclamation by Antiochus III ca 200 BCE. Says not all may be genuine, or at best, have genuine cores with later editing.
Ben Sira talks about Torah/nomos, but it’s unclear what he meant, Adler says, so he says we shouldn't read too much into him.
Conclusion to this subsection? The Pentateuch existed at this time, but might not have been finalized, and its Torah was probably not observed by, nor of interest to, the masses. This is why he says not to read too much into Ben Sira, and notes the date of the Letter to Aristeas. Obviously, even if observance of Torah was becoming more common in the homeland by 200 BCE, it wasn't yet so outside there.

Greek law codes as model?
Adler looks at the hypothesis by Michael LeFebvre that these law codes served as both model and spur, and started as descriptive, not prescriptive.
Hammurabi, etc., were purely descriptive. Greeks, in writing their law codes out, were doing so with a more prescriptive mindset. These codes, contra Babylon, etc., contained commands for sacred observances, etc., as well as "civilian" prescriptions.
LeFebvre says Torah developed as descriptive and shifted to prescriptive under Ptolemaic influence. Ptolemy II gave Greeks and Egyptians separate courts, and subordinated both their codes to royal law.
Adler considers this "plausible."

Hasmonean era
Daniel 9-11 may reflect attacks on Temple court, not whole Torah, Adler says. 1-2 Maccabees name Torah, not just "covenant" as in Daniel. They cite many specific commands, like Nazirite vows, first fruits, tithes, etc., that rebels observe.
I Maccabees was quite possibly written in time of Jannaeus, per Adler and others? II Maccabees dating from mid 2 BCE-mid 1 CE with some uncertainty, and thus can't be used for dating widespread Torah observance.
Adler then says, contra the voice of Sylvie Honigman, that revolt was economic and no real religious persecution. (Hanukkah was originally pagan, which may indirectly support this.) Torah as binding thus a result, not a cause.


CONCLUSION

Unity document
Even if the persecution of Antiochus IV was real, it may well have targeted just the temple cult, per Daniel. The Torah was elevated in Maccabees as part of Hasmoneann unity program. John Collins and Reinhard Kratz propose this. Hyrcanus coercing Idumeans to support "the whole law" may support this. So may the rise of Jewish sectarianism upon independence.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating book. In it, Adler makes the case that some of the characteristic practices of Torah-Judaism should be leaving archeological and literary evidence in the record. And so he examines ancient Judea for its synagogues, dietary remains, art, Tefillin and so on. He concludes that there is very little evidence in the archeological record for anything like Judaism defined as awareness of and respect for the Torah until the second century BC, during the Hasmonean era. Loved it. Clarity, depth of scholarship, wide research--it's all here.

[Lisa Bussom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting perspective on the origins of Judaism. Using archeological techniques, the author tries to define when the laws of Judaism were actually followed by the general Hebrew population as opposed to when they were just cited textually. It is definitely an academic work, but it is quite readable and well thought-out.

[Ans Schapendonk · Rating 1 out of 5]

Is it correct when Yonatan Adler says that he uses archaeological discoveries and ancient texts? He talks about "methods" to prove that the Torah existed before, but in the summary of the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1TN... he claims that contemporary Judaism is a REVIVAL knew AFTER the Greek period. This should hit like a BOMB. He falteringly tells how “ironic” it is that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, while activities on Saturday (Sabbath) are forbidden according to Jewish law.
If we look at the translation of the interview, the spellings of the terms are striking. Adler says: “The remains of a synagogue are from the “hasmonian” period at umdan in the Judean shephala. There is no evidence before the "hessmanian" period. All the evidence seems to be homing in on the “hespanine" period. Its the “hassanine” period when this synagogue first emerges. Around 34:00 Adler says: “I do not know of any evidence that predates the “husbandine” period for observance of the Torah This is a very remarkable "translation": HUSBAND! Not the bride of a fatherly God, but a bridegroom of Mother Nature!
Adler continues: "That doesn't mean that the Torah began to be observed in the “has been in” period, because again absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence so it could have been that regular everyday judeans have been observing Judaism before the “hassamine" period. But the fact is that we don't have any evidence before the hassamine period".
The Dutch national anthem (Het Wilhelmus) also mentions 'Hispanje', which would indicate the current Spain, but apparently there was already an earlier 'SPA(nje)', which indicates 'WATER'! In the same way, Adler wants to make it clear that Judaism already existed before the present Judea!
This would imply that the current ISRA-el (i.c. iron-age) already had an earlier existence, which could be called IJZERHOEK (l’Iserhouck), which is located on the coast of present-day northern France, where the first people spoke Dutch (i.c. Flemish). About this FACT articles and books have been written about as far back as 2013, to which Yonatan Adler unfortunately does not refer!
The "has been in - period" refers to the Dutch ‘been’ which means ‘leg’ in English, while the English ‘has’ refers to the Dutch ‘haas’ which helixes from Paas (Eastern), because it is about the Paashaas, the Easter Bunny (i.c. Passover, which means ‘jump over’, in Dutch Haasje-over which indicates ‘quantensprong’). Hares do not lay eggs, but they are a symbol of fertility in which the ‘fer’ means ‘iron’. The 'leg' being retracted refers to XX (female > (fe)male) which changes to XY (male) with 'seven' 'legs' and not 'eight legs' making it the Jewish holiday ZEVEN-ACHT > ZEVENACHT > SEVEN EIGHT > SEVEN-NIGHT (i.c. kruisridders > crusaders, which means FARI-ZEEERS > ZEEVAARDERS. But the 'has been in' is also about a Dutch 'wortel’ which comes from CARO > CARROT / TORRAC (this is a permuatio: read from the right to the left, a new soundrule, linguists never did recognise)! CARROT / TORAK > ORACLE of Delph, where the female priests could forspell the future since mal scientists never did take seriously this knowledge!
Dutch ‘Haasje over’ indicates also ‘oorsprong’ (origin) which is helixing in ‘over-sprong’ which deals with ‘quantenjump’ (kwantumsprong).
Adler goes on to say, “How do I explain that there was a REVOLT of judaism? There was a “Hispanian” family (Matthias with his five sons) that revolted against the seleucid kingdom. The judeans received independence they fought for. Around 40:00 in the interview, Adler says “The story of the Jews is true, the Genesis through all the Patriarchs and the Exodus. The story of the emergence of the Genesis of the Jewish appears in the Torah”. But Adler also says: “Rulers like John forced men f.e. to be circumcised. This kind of rulers conquered people in the north called the ETURIANS”.
But who were the ETURIANS? This name helixt from PAT > PEET > PETRUS > (p)ETRUSK(en) > ETURIAN which means RETOUR (returns) which explains the name in the North of France: Tournehem-sur-le-Hem which was the FIRST Jerusalem! And this is again a bomb ..
Why are British scientists do research the DOGGERLAND with magnetic methods? Because they want to reconstruct how a tsunami did disappear this 'hole land' were people used boats, called 'kanu' which deals with Kanaän, i.c. Canaan! Since out of DOG / GOD is helixing, out of MA-DOG (i.c. the rules of Mother Nature and daughters: matriarchy), DOG-MA is helixing (i.c. the rules of Father God and his son: patriarchy)!
Adler says in the summary: “My point is that only from the period of the hassanines and onwards we find evidence that the masses knew about this Torah and were observing.”
MY POINT is that Yonatan Adler is hiding that he is misusing THE UNIVERSAL SOUNDHELIX of the PREHISTORIC MIDWIVES STOLEN BY FAMOUS SCIENTISTS (2022, ISBN 9783981802245) to come up with his so called "own insights". This is about (p)ROOF of PLAGIARISM in which ROOF means TO STEAL: i.c. IRON > IRONIC > IRONICAL > to think AROUND THE CORNER! This is a SOUNDHELIX since words are getting LONGER at the END and SOLVE at the FRONT. These new soundrules make it possible to reconstruct the past, but also to spell the future, to FORSPELL the future, a science Jesus did learn from his MOTHER and his GRANDMOTHER(s).

[Rich Bussom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an academic work but a very accessible one. I recommend it highly.

[Fathy Sroor · Rating 4 out of 5]

بحسب العهد القديم فالتوراة(أسفار موسى الخمسة) أتكتبت حوالي القرن ال١٣ ق.م، لكن المجمع عليه تقريبا بين الباحثين أنها أتكتبت فعلاً في القرن السادس ق.م، لكن في خطأ قاتل وقع فيه أغلب الباحثين وهو أنهم أفترضوا أن بمجرد ما أتكتبت التوراة بدأوا يطبقوها(زي ما حصل مع الأناجيل والقرآن )، ده خطأ لأن ببساطة ممكن الكتاب بعد ما يتكتب يتساب ع الهامش فترة قبل ما ينتشر بين الناس… وهنا ييجي السؤال: أمتى؟! أمتى عرفت جماهير الأسرائيليين بالتوراة وبدأت تطبق أوامرها ونواهيها؟!

الكتاب ده بيحاول يجاوب السؤال ده، والطريقة نظريا بسيطة:
تعالى نختار فترة زمنية أحنا معندناش شك أن الناس في المنطقة دي كانوا بيمارسوا اليهودية وعلى علم بالتوراة، ونشوف شكل الأدلة المختلفة اللي ناتجة عن ده، وبعدين نمسكهم دليل دليل وندور ونشوف أقدم مثال ليه كان أمتى، لو لقينا كل(أو ع الأقل أغلب) الأدلة بتبدأ كلها في فترة واحدة يبقى نقدر نقول بدرجة من الثقة أن الناس عرفت التوراة لأول مرة في الفترة دي… الفترة اللي هنبدأ منها هي القرن الأول قبل الميلاد.

طب أيه أنواع الأدلة؟!
أتنين، أولهم أدلة أدبية بتتمثل في كتابات شخصيات يهودية وغير يهودية عن المجتمع تظهر نوع من المعرفة بالتوراة بين الناس ، الدليل التاني هو الأثار المادية ، يعني الناس زمان أغلبهم أميين، فلازم عشان يعرفوا التوراة يبقى فيه الكنيس Synagogue ، واليهود عندهم طقوس التطهر بالغمر في المياه (المعمدانية) فهنلاقي أحواض حجرية، واليهود حرم عليهم حاجات زي الخنازير والأرانب البرية والأسماك اللي ملهاش حراشيف(القراميط مثلاً) فهنلاقي نسبة عظام الحيوانات دي في مواقع التنقيب قليلة بالمقارنة بالقرى المجاورة…وهكذا.

ولقينا أيه؟!
كل الأدلة بتشير لفترة واحدة بس: القرن التاني ق.م! في الفترة دي فجأة الناس بنت ال Synagogues وحفرت الأحواض وأستعملت الأواني الحجرية وأختتنت وبطلت تأكل خنازير وقراميط وتاخد يوم السبت أجازة… كله مع بعضه…. النتيجة مفاجأة، وده يخلينا نسأل: أشمعنى ؟! ليه الفترة دي تحديدا الناس تعرف فيها التوراة؟!
…….

بعد ما غزا الأسكندر الأكبر المنطقة في 326# ق.م. وقعت فلسطين بالتبادل تحت سيطرة السلوقيين والبطلميين، وبالتالي تأثرت بالثقافة اليونانية على كل المستويات ، ده شمل اللغة والعادات والفن والثقافة والعمارة، في القرن الثاني قبل الميلاد ظهر سلالة ملكية يهودية أسمهم الحشمونيين(أو المكابيين) ودول قاموا بثورة وتولوا حكم الشعب الأسرائيلي و"أجبروه على العودة لأتباع التوراة"، بعد ما ضل تحت غواية الثقافة اليونانية ، ولما أستتب ليهم الأمر بدأوا يغيروا على القبائل والدويلات غير اليهودية المحيطة ويجبروهم على التهود بالعافية، وفرضوا الشريعة بحد السيف…. المقطع اللي فات ده اللي بيقوله التاريخ وبيقوله كمان العهد القديم، للي ما يعرفش: العهد القديم مصطلح بيشمل مجموعة كتب أولها التوراة (أسفار موسى) وتليه كتابات متعددة بتغطي تاريخ الأسرائيلين من بعد"التيه في سيناء" لحد زمن المكابيين.

لو دمجنا المعلومة دي مع الأستنتاج اللي في الأول هنطلع بأستنتاج تاني:
على ما يبدو أن التوراة قعدت قرون عديدة بعد كتابتها على الهامش، كتاب موجود وممكن تكون بعض قصصه متداولة بس بشكل عام أغلب الناس ما تعرفش عنه حاجة، فيه مثقفين يعرفوه بس العامة لا سمعوا عنه ولا يعرفوا تعاليمه ولا ليهم علاقة بيه من بابه وكل واحد بيعبد اللي يناسبه…لحد ماجه ملوك المكابيين وقرروا توحيد الشعب ده، فطلعوا الكتاب وألزموا الشعب بتعاليمه بالعافية، فأتبنت ال Synagogues وأتعلم الناس وأتفرض عليهم الدين، ده قبل ما يبدأ الملوك دول يفرضوا الدين على بعض القبائل المجاورة كمان.

طب الفكرة جت منين؟! فكرة أن نختار للناس كتاب ونلزمه بأوامره ونواهيه؟!
هو مفيش أجابة حاسمة، لكن ربما الأمر له علاقة بأستلهام الفكرة من اليونايين، ده لأنهم أول شعب نعرفه طبق فكرة القانون المكتوب، يعني نحدد عقوبة للجرايم المختلفة، ونحط نسخ من القانون في المعابد والأسواق للناس تقرأها، بعكس حاجة زي قواني�� حمورابي اللي هي بتكلم الحكومة تعاقب الناس أزاي وبس.
……..
عموما النتيجة الأولى(أن الناس ألتزمت بالتوراة وعرفتها أصلاً في وقت متأخر جداً) هتفسر لينا شوية حاجات تانية:
١/ التوراة زي ما قولنا هي أقدم أجزاء العهد القديم، وباقي الأجزاء تاريخ بالأساس، لما بنقرأ الأجزاء دي مبتحسش قوي أن الشخصيات يهودية، يعني تلاقي شخص المفروض أنه يهودي بيشتغل السبت عادي أو بيأكل لحم الخنزير عادي ومفيش حد في القصة بيستنكر، بينما لما جه المسيحيين بالعهد الجديد تلاقي اليهود فيها يهود وعارفين الشريعة ولما حد بيخالفها الناس بتاخد موقف… ده لأن العهد القديم أتكتب في زمن مكانش أغلب الشعب يعرف حاجة عن التوراة وتحريماتها، وده عكس العهد الجديد.

٢/ لما تبص على تاريخ الفقه اليهودي تلاقيه كله في أواخر القرن التاني والقرن الأول ق.م، وبتلاقيه بيظهر طازة كدا بيناقش في البديهيات، زي مثلاً "أحنا يهود والسبت أجازة عندنا يحرم فيه العمل، بس لو كنا في حرب وجه يوم السبت،نحارب ولا لا؟!"، فتلاقيهم بيتناقشوا ومحدش يجيب سيرة أن فلان الفقيه من ٢٠٠ سنة كان رده كذا، لأ هما بيجاوبوا من الصفر…. فهل لو الناس تعرف التوراة وعايشة بيها بقالها كام قرن قبل الوقت ده، فهل معقول مكانش فيه أي فقه خالص طول قرون؟!

٣/بعد موت النبي محمد بأقل من ٣٠ سنة أنشق الأسلام لسنة وشيعة ،والمسيحية كانت يدوب لسه بتحبي لما بدأوا يختلفوا في طبيعة الله والمسيح وعلاقتهم، وده ينطبق على كل الأديان الكبرى، بس اليهودية تلاقي كل فرقها(الصدوقيين والحريديم والفريسيين..إلخ) كلها ظهرت في القرنين التاني والأول ق.م، فيعني هل يعقل أنها فضلت ديانة موحدة كام قرن وفجأة أختلفوا وأتفرقوا؟! الأوقع أن التوراة مكانتش معروفة للعامة ولا معتمدة، عشان كدا الناس لما تناقشها بجدية وتختلف فيها.
…….
سؤال أخير:
طب ما هو العهد القديم نفسه بيقول أن الشعب كان كل شوية يضل ويبعد عن الشريعة،وبعدين يظهر حاكم يردهم للديانة تاني،ويضلوا تاني، وييجي حد يردهم تالت…إلخ، والقرآن قال كدا بأختصار، ده يعني ما يمشيش مع نتايج البحث؟!

الأجابة اللي جاية بتاعتي ومش من الكتاب:
لأ ما يمشيش، لأن أحنا مثلا مش بنلاقي أثار(مادية أو أدبية) تدل على أنهم أتبعوا فترة وبعدين بطلوا، أنا بقولك أقدم من القرن الثاني ق.م مفيش حاجة خالص، المسألة مش أننا مش لاقيين هيكل سليمان، أحنا مش لاقيين أثر للSynagogues وغيرها من بابه في أي فترة سابقة، ودي لوحدها كفاية لأن أغلب الناس لا تقرأ وده سبيلها الوحيد عشان تعرف الديانة…

اللي فات ده يفتح لوحده باب الشك في مصداقية القصة كلها.

[Yehuda Isseroff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was an interesting and thought-provoking book. I'm certainly not an expert in this field, but I agreed with some things more than others. In general, the prose was a bit dry - I know it's a minor gripe, considering the intended audience. I appreciate the methodology behind his study and how he explained it, but there were definitely many chunks of the book that I felt were filler. That said, I'm sure I will be looking back in the book many times in the future. I do recommend Malka Simkovich's review of the book which was published in Jewish Review of Books Winter 2024, and the subsequent discussion (on Twitter/X, I believe) between Adler and Simkovich.

_____
Pages with Book Darts:
30: Josephus claimed that throughout the Roman world, one could find non-Judeans who had adopted many of the Judean dietary restrictions (!)
140: Report in I Maccabees that tells of a group of Judeans who would not fight back against enemies on Sabbath
142: Adler's claim that "outside the Pentateuch, the Hebrew Bible contains no narratives at all about Judeans or Israelites who abstained from this or that activity in deference to a prohibition against engaging in 'work' on the Sabbath"
162: Quote from Ezra regarding the reinstatement of Sukkot
175: Epigraphic evidence for the existence of synagogues in 1st century CE
206: Did Babylonian Judeans in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE know about the Pentateuch or Sabbath?
217: Did law writings in ancient Mesopotamia function differently than our common modern-day conception of law writings? How so?
234: Summary of the basic claim that "Judaism" emerged sometime in the 2nd century BCE under Hasmonean leadership

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars for being a quality piece of investigative research that is well-presented and argued.

I don’t know if I would tell my past self to read it again! This is a very subjective review from an un-primed gentile’s POV, but I’m considering if I were telling my past self knowing what I had set out to read.

My favorite parts were the conclusions at the end of the chapters and the last chapter. I really enjoyed the synthesizing of all the information presented into cohesive, and clearly well-supported theses. However, as someone who was looking for a broader survey (maybe more anthropological than archaeological), those conclusions were really all I needed!

This kind of book needs to exist and be foundational for other works, but I now recognize that as a lay-person / nubile to the area of study, this was beyond my (want of) depth. I.e. yes the work should be done to analyze catfish bones in dig sites, but I’d be satisfied just knowing that those numbers mean they weren’t adhering to the dietary laws in the Persian period.

Granted, I did learn a lot, and even as someone who would have benefited from reading a more contextualized primer/history first, the ground-level explanations and clear, straightforward writing helped me from getting lost.

The final chapter is very thought provoking and warrants all the lead-up.

Would recommend to the academic, learned religious/ ancient history reader, or the precocious intellectual.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the sort of insight that comes not from a recent dig or a new reading of an ostracon, but from stepping back and thinking methodically about the mass of evidence assembled over recent decades. Using archaeology, literature and epigraphy, among other disciplines, Adler considers the basics of Judaism at the turn of the 1st millennium CE (and since) - including the dietary and purity laws, Passover and other holidays, and the synagogue - traces them back as far as the evidence allows, and finds little or no reason to believe that the people of Judea and the ancient diaspora followed the laws set down in the Pentateuch much before 200 BCE.

He's appropriately cautious, and certainly doesn't claim that the Hebrew Bible was a Hasmonean invention meant to unite the nation and give it a unique identity, but he believes that whatever form it may have taken from the Iron Age to early Hellenistic era, the Torah was at most known to the elite and not a set of rules for the general population to live by.

Adler sorts through a mountain of evidence - from the presence (or absence) of pig bones and ritual baths in Iron Age Palestine to the Dead Sea Scrolls, letters from the Jewish mercenaries in Elephantine, coinage, artwork and much more - and if you're familiar with the broad outlines of ancient history and names like Josephus and Philo, it's a surprisingly easy read.

[Gabriel Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating

A fascinating exploration of the origins of Judaism. Specifically, when is it likely that the Judeans adopted the Torah and Judaism as we know it was established. The author makes a convincing case that this could not have occurred before the middle of the second century BCE; and that the most likely period was during the reign of the Hasmonean kings. What is particularly fascinating is how he shows that many of the precepts of Judaism (the Sabbath, fasting on the Day of Atonement, Passover) were generally tunknown prior to this period. Even the Bible, outside the Pentateuch, shows little or no knowledge or awareness of them.

[Hunter Bullock · Rating 5 out of 5]

Methodical argumentation and lucid prose characterize Yonatan Adler's "The Origins of Judaism." The terminus ante quem for Judaism, defined as the "Jewish way of life characterized by conformity to the rules and regulations of the Torah," obtains in the second century BCE (5). Before the second century BCE, textual and archaeological evidence for widespread adoption of Torah law among "rank-and-file" Judeans is lacking; only beginning in the second century BCE does Torah law come to be adopted and practiced by Judean masses. Widespread adoption and practice of Torah law among Judean masses most probably stems from Hasmonean promulgation (228-36).

[Charles Meadows · Rating 4 out of 5]

When did Judaism as we know it start? Later than most would think. The author admits that many aspects of Jewish belief have ancient root, but shows that archeology does not show evidence of Torah adherence until the Hellenistic period. Great book, although it can get dry, since it is (as advertised) an appraisal of archeological evidence.

[Nadav · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting exploration of a fascinating question: When did Judaism emerge in a form that we can recognize?

[Amitna104 · Rating 5 out of 5]

An enlighting summary and interesting theory about the birth of Judaism - not yet as we know it, but getting closer. Very interesting and readable for unschooled readers such as me.

[Aron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really well written analysis of when the main practices of Jewish culture became widely observed by the general population. While the analysis itself was clear and well argued, I did find his ultimate conclusion way too speculative and unsupported by the evidence. The idea that 1/ the Hasmonean kings retroactively doctored the story of their revolt against the Selucids as a fight to uphold ancient practice, when in fact it was just a power grab & therefore 2/ that’s the motivation for their pushing these practices on the people, seems quite unconvincing.

After all the contemporary elites would be well aware of what really happened and pass on their perspective, so how is it possible that just a few decades later everyone has bought into this story hook, line & sinker? Considering that only a few generations later the Rabbis saw the Hasmoneans as Hellenistic collaborators also undermines the thesis.

Moreover, it takes quite a long time (ie hundreds of years) for the “masses” to adopt practices pushed on them by elites (cf. the adoption of Christianity in Rome or Islam after Arab conquest). Yet Adler is making a claim this happened in just a few short decades!

Moreover, as we know in many ancient cultures, there is almost always a gap between elite practices and those of the masses. So what if elites celebrated the Sabbath & holidays and the masses didn’t in the exact same way? That’s just the way things were in the ancient world so the only evidence would be in the elite writings (cf Egyptian ritual practice).

Adler himself admits that the Pentatauchal sources of these practices are far older. He also admits that certain practices might (like circumcision) have been around since truly ancient times. He just claims that until the Hasmoneans they weren’t prescriptive.

A better hypothesis to explain the lack of evidence is as follows. Some if not all of these practices likely go back far in time. The holidays in particular match agricultural seasons and probably go way back to pre-exilic times. It is quite likely that the priestly class & then later other elites (court related) who were literate observed these practices far closer to the Pentatauchal prescriptions but the elites didnt necessarily care that the masses were both ignorant and less meticulous.

Literacy was far more widespread in the second temple period particularly under the influence of Hellenism and its educational practices. So the number of people who comprised the educated elite grew significantly and for the same reason, more people followed the Pentatauchal practices.

By the time of the Hasmoneans kings these practices were firmly entrenched in a relatively large elite, and many would have joined the Hasmonean revolt which was seen as preserving ancient ways. The fact that the book of Maccabee’s explicitly mentions circumcision is likely because it was such an ancient practice and by this time was likely widely seen as prescriptive.

The Hasmoneans no doubt accelerated the spread of literacy and might have instituted the idea of using synagogues to teach the masses, which of course further accelerated existing trends. But nonetheless, ultimately the diffusion of these practices among all the Jews was a matter of hundreds of years, not decades as Adler claims.

Finally the fact that schisms arose in the Hasmonean period doesn’t prove that the imposition of practice started in this period. It’s quite possible that these schisms are just reflections of political discontent to Hasmonean rule. By contrast, in the Persian period, the elites were more concerned with re-establishing themselves in the region and also were not about to fight the Persian appointed leadership. Once there was a native leadership, it’s obvious why native elites would start forming factions.

In sum, great book, but far from the definitive answer Adler thought he had found.