What do you think?
Rate this book
Hellenistic Culture and Society
The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties
In modern times, various Jewish groups have argued whether Jewishness is a function of ethnicity, of nationality, of religion, or of all three. These fundamental conceptions were already in place in antiquity. The peculiar combination of ethnicity, nationality, and religion that would characterize Jewishness through the centuries first took shape in the second century B.C.E. This brilliantly argued, accessible book unravels one of the most complex issues of late antiquity by showing how these elements were understood and applied in the construction of Jewish identity―by Jews, by gentiles, and by the state.
Beginning with the intriguing case of Herod the Great's Jewishness, Cohen moves on to discuss what made or did not make Jewish identity during the period, the question of conversion, the prohibition of intermarriage, matrilineal descent, and the place of the convert in the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds. His superb study is unique in that it draws on a wide range of Jewish literature written in Greek, classical sources, and rabbinic texts, both ancient and medieval. It also features a detailed discussion of many of the central rabbinic texts dealing with conversion to Judaism.
Beginning with the intriguing case of Herod the Great's Jewishness, Cohen moves on to discuss what made or did not make Jewish identity during the period, the question of conversion, the prohibition of intermarriage, matrilineal descent, and the place of the convert in the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds. His superb study is unique in that it draws on a wide range of Jewish literature written in Greek, classical sources, and rabbinic texts, both ancient and medieval. It also features a detailed discussion of many of the central rabbinic texts dealing with conversion to Judaism.
458 pages, Paperback
First published January 2, 1999
38 people are currently reading
244 people want to read
About the author
Shaye J.D. Cohen
18 books13 followersShaye J. D. Cohen is the Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Harvard University. He received his Ph.D. in Ancient History, with distinction, from Columbia University in 1975. He is also an ordained rabbi, and for many years was the Dean of the Graduate School and Shenkman Professor of Jewish History at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City. Before arriving at Harvard in July 2001, he was for ten years the Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies at Brown University. The focus of Cohen's research is the boundary between Jews and gentiles and between Judaism and its surrounding culture. He is also a published authority on Jewish reactions to Hellenism and to Christianity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
June 28, 2025
This is the shoddiest piece of scholarship I've ever read in my entire life. If I submitted a paper sourced and written like this book in my first year history class, my professor would have thrown my paper out and chastised me, and rightfully so. How this book is so highly reviewed completely astounds me, which I can only attribute either to deep ignorance on the subject matter or deep implicit bias against those Cohen misrepresents here. Cohen's theses rest on heavily cherry picked sources, major logic fallacies, and implicit race essentialism. He is often contradicted by his own sources, and he buries contradicting evidence or doubt regarding his sources deep in footnotes to what he states as fact in the actual text. Cohen frequently betrays a deep bias against converts to Judaism that he clearly projects onto Jews in antiquity, not so subtly in a bid to undermine the historical validity of conversion to Judaism and the Jewishness of converts in antiquity (and by extension, modern day converts).
To give some examples, in chapter 5, he claims that Jews in antiquity did not see "proselytes" as "becoming Jewish" because, according to him, Jewish texts "put this locution exclusively in the mouths of gentiles" and that otherwise Jewish texts "use other terms." In the explanatory footnote, Cohen then lists numerous examples of CONVERTS referring to themselves has having become Jewish (or Israelite or Hebrew) in Jewish texts. While Cohen backtracks somewhat within the footnote that "converts and gentiles" use these expressions, in the actual text, Cohen firmly states "*exclusively* gentiles" use this wording. In essence, Cohen referred to converts to Judaism as non-Jews. There are even further problems. Cohen is contradicted by his own sources. He cites Yevamot 47b here and heavily in chapter 7, which clearly states that a convert "is like an Israelite in every way." Even more damning, Cohen brings up himself Esther 8:16, which clearly and explicitly refers to non-Jews "becoming Jewish." The even deeper problem is that Cohen's claim here, even if it were not contradicted by textual evidence, does not follow from how Jewish texts generally express debate and disagreement. When converts (and the occasional gentile) are repeatedly recorded in Jewish texts as "having become Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew," there is no pushback or even a sense of irony present. Jewish texts do not express disagreement through silence. Often, silence is affirmation. Here, these texts are simply letting ancient gerim speak for themselves, not invalidating them.
There are more profound issues. Cohen proceeds to argue that gerim in antiquity could not have been truly equal with born Jews by dismissing, without good reason, every single rabbinic text (and there are MANY) affirming the inclusion and equality of gerim in favor of focusing on a single Mishnaic source, M. Bikkurim 1:4-5 (which is likely more concerned with legal technicality than the sweeping identity-based generalizations Cohen tortures out of it). This is the entire focus of chapter 10, which Cohen primarily bases his assertion of how ancient gerim were perceived identity-wise. He completely ignores the existence of Tosefta Bikkurim 1:6 (which is the actual basis of modern Jewish halacha on the addressed issue), dated to the same general time period as M. Bikkurim, a majority opinion directly contradicting M. Bikkurim 1:4 and affirming that gerim are considered the descendants of Abraham, fundamentally undermining Cohen's attempt to portray ancient Jews generally not accepting converts' full Jewishness on the basis of bloodline.
There are major source issues in chapter 5 again. One being that Cohen uncritically cites the Acts of Pilate on the high priests' supposed attitudes towards converts. The Acts of Pilate is a 4th century apocryphal Christian text attempting to exonerate Pilate for the execution of Jesus and blaming Jews, particularly the high priests, instead. This is a polemic against Jewish authorities, not a reliable historical source. Citing this text on the beliefs of the high priests is like citing the Protocols of the Elder of Zion on the political activities of 19th century Jews. He also cites some Qumran texts, actually written by an extremist sect that believed most Jews were impure and heretical, and presents their expressed attitudes against (supposedly) converts as if they are representative of all Jews in antiquity. Cohen also buries in a footnote that there is scholarly doubt whether the "ger" referred to in the Qumran texts is actually a convert (ger tzedek) or a resident alien (ger toshav), all while treating the interpretation that it refers to converts as fact in the actual text.
His thesis in chapter 3 that conversion to Judaism was a Hellenistic innovation from the Hasmonean period is laughably easy to debunk. He rests a significant portion of his argument on his claim that the earliest accounts of conversion to Judaism only date to the Hasmonean period. This is blatantly false, and all you need to do to debunk this is go listen to the megillah on Purim. The Book of Esther, dated by most scholars to the 5th century BCE (THREE centuries BEFORE the Hasmoneans), contains a clear, explicit reference to conversion to Judaism (8:16; and one that cuts through Cohen's sound and fury over whether converts were truly seen as "becoming Jews"), which Cohen is clearly aware of because he cited it in a footnote elsewhere in the book. He also bases his thesis on the idea that Torah cannot possibly be referring to converts at any point with the word "ger," with much torturous and poorly backed assertions and selective reading, but ultimately because (quoting Bickerman), "Oriental civilizations had no concept of naturalization," a blatantly racist generalization.
I could go on, but this review is long enough. This book has little to do with "the beginnings of Jewishness," but rather projections of modern insecurities over race, ethnicity, and religion. This is not a credible scholarly work but rather a hit piece on the validity of conversion to Judaism. Don't waste your money or your time.
To give some examples, in chapter 5, he claims that Jews in antiquity did not see "proselytes" as "becoming Jewish" because, according to him, Jewish texts "put this locution exclusively in the mouths of gentiles" and that otherwise Jewish texts "use other terms." In the explanatory footnote, Cohen then lists numerous examples of CONVERTS referring to themselves has having become Jewish (or Israelite or Hebrew) in Jewish texts. While Cohen backtracks somewhat within the footnote that "converts and gentiles" use these expressions, in the actual text, Cohen firmly states "*exclusively* gentiles" use this wording. In essence, Cohen referred to converts to Judaism as non-Jews. There are even further problems. Cohen is contradicted by his own sources. He cites Yevamot 47b here and heavily in chapter 7, which clearly states that a convert "is like an Israelite in every way." Even more damning, Cohen brings up himself Esther 8:16, which clearly and explicitly refers to non-Jews "becoming Jewish." The even deeper problem is that Cohen's claim here, even if it were not contradicted by textual evidence, does not follow from how Jewish texts generally express debate and disagreement. When converts (and the occasional gentile) are repeatedly recorded in Jewish texts as "having become Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew," there is no pushback or even a sense of irony present. Jewish texts do not express disagreement through silence. Often, silence is affirmation. Here, these texts are simply letting ancient gerim speak for themselves, not invalidating them.
There are more profound issues. Cohen proceeds to argue that gerim in antiquity could not have been truly equal with born Jews by dismissing, without good reason, every single rabbinic text (and there are MANY) affirming the inclusion and equality of gerim in favor of focusing on a single Mishnaic source, M. Bikkurim 1:4-5 (which is likely more concerned with legal technicality than the sweeping identity-based generalizations Cohen tortures out of it). This is the entire focus of chapter 10, which Cohen primarily bases his assertion of how ancient gerim were perceived identity-wise. He completely ignores the existence of Tosefta Bikkurim 1:6 (which is the actual basis of modern Jewish halacha on the addressed issue), dated to the same general time period as M. Bikkurim, a majority opinion directly contradicting M. Bikkurim 1:4 and affirming that gerim are considered the descendants of Abraham, fundamentally undermining Cohen's attempt to portray ancient Jews generally not accepting converts' full Jewishness on the basis of bloodline.
There are major source issues in chapter 5 again. One being that Cohen uncritically cites the Acts of Pilate on the high priests' supposed attitudes towards converts. The Acts of Pilate is a 4th century apocryphal Christian text attempting to exonerate Pilate for the execution of Jesus and blaming Jews, particularly the high priests, instead. This is a polemic against Jewish authorities, not a reliable historical source. Citing this text on the beliefs of the high priests is like citing the Protocols of the Elder of Zion on the political activities of 19th century Jews. He also cites some Qumran texts, actually written by an extremist sect that believed most Jews were impure and heretical, and presents their expressed attitudes against (supposedly) converts as if they are representative of all Jews in antiquity. Cohen also buries in a footnote that there is scholarly doubt whether the "ger" referred to in the Qumran texts is actually a convert (ger tzedek) or a resident alien (ger toshav), all while treating the interpretation that it refers to converts as fact in the actual text.
His thesis in chapter 3 that conversion to Judaism was a Hellenistic innovation from the Hasmonean period is laughably easy to debunk. He rests a significant portion of his argument on his claim that the earliest accounts of conversion to Judaism only date to the Hasmonean period. This is blatantly false, and all you need to do to debunk this is go listen to the megillah on Purim. The Book of Esther, dated by most scholars to the 5th century BCE (THREE centuries BEFORE the Hasmoneans), contains a clear, explicit reference to conversion to Judaism (8:16; and one that cuts through Cohen's sound and fury over whether converts were truly seen as "becoming Jews"), which Cohen is clearly aware of because he cited it in a footnote elsewhere in the book. He also bases his thesis on the idea that Torah cannot possibly be referring to converts at any point with the word "ger," with much torturous and poorly backed assertions and selective reading, but ultimately because (quoting Bickerman), "Oriental civilizations had no concept of naturalization," a blatantly racist generalization.
I could go on, but this review is long enough. This book has little to do with "the beginnings of Jewishness," but rather projections of modern insecurities over race, ethnicity, and religion. This is not a credible scholarly work but rather a hit piece on the validity of conversion to Judaism. Don't waste your money or your time.
March 16, 2015
After reading the book for my comprehensive exams and directed research, I really don't think Cohen's argument stands strong. I do not think at the conclusion of his book that we can look at any person at any point in history and call them a Jew or not.
His entire book basically leads to no real conclusion. Do we know when someone was a Jew or not - No. Do Jews do things that set them apart in history - No. He also seems to spend a really long time discussing circumcision, for really no reason. Circumcision apparently had nothing to do with the identification of a Jew or Gentile. This fact was interesting to me because this is always something discussed, but it doesn't stand up to critique. Overall the book was an enjoyable read, but not very useful.
His entire book basically leads to no real conclusion. Do we know when someone was a Jew or not - No. Do Jews do things that set them apart in history - No. He also seems to spend a really long time discussing circumcision, for really no reason. Circumcision apparently had nothing to do with the identification of a Jew or Gentile. This fact was interesting to me because this is always something discussed, but it doesn't stand up to critique. Overall the book was an enjoyable read, but not very useful.
July 8, 2007
despite the fact that Shaye appears to be perpetually perplexed by the penis... this is a good read...
for a laugh, check out Neusner's review on ATLA.
for a laugh, check out Neusner's review on ATLA.
December 23, 2024
Every so often throughout my readings in Judaism again and again do footnotes keep pointing back to one book and given the name of this one, The Beginnings of Jewishness, it may be more than a simple pun that the nexus point is indeed a book about how it all began...at least from an academic/historical viewpoint.
So. The big question: Were all our laws—Written and Oral—really delivered by the man Moses descending from a relatively nondescript mountain after several dozen days? Spoiler: this book does not exactly go there nor that far into the past though readers who identify as ‘traditional Jews’ may find some—but not all!--of what is covered in the ten chapters and four appendices of this book to contain some unsettling bits of information.
With cards out, by accounts traditional and non, I am halachically Jewish though keeping them out, my beliefs are far and way not traditional and being married to a non-Jew with (gasp!) non-(halachically) Jewish children, the law of matrilineal descent has always seemed a bit strange. But—and again, as noted here—there are multiple historic ways to look at it. The chances of it being an actual Oral Law given by Moses in spite of it having flimsy (at the very best) scriptural (ie, within the Chumash) support? Extremely low. More likely, as discussed in length in the penultimate chapter, it may have been a combination of an aversion to intermarriage, an emulation of similar Roman law, and also an aversion to intermingling in general.
Obviously there is more going on in The Beginnings of Jewishness than a discussion on one quirky several sentence ruling in the Mishnah. A lot more really from just how around two millennia ago one could not quite figure out just who is indeed Jewish, the difference between someone living in Judea and one practicing the faith of that land, when conversion went from simply ‘marrying in’ to the robust affair it is today, and finally settling the matter on whether or not we’re supposed to like Herod (OK, that last one may be answered in the first quote listed below).
What’s more, in spite of being an academic work, footnotes aside, it’s mostly not a difficult read. Lay readers, curious liberal Jews, and those wearing black-hats who want to dig a little bit deeper beyond “official” sources may find many hidden gems here.
Coda for eBook users: kindly note this book may have been an older transfer and is missing some of the creature comforts of newer eBooks. The formatting is odd to say the least. However, the footnotes work and being an academic work, that is probably the most important thing that can make or break a purchase.
---Notable Highlights---
“Most forms of ancient Judaism, I think, would have disapproved proved of Herod's murder of his wives and children.”
“Not a single ancient author says that Jews are distinctive because of their looks, clothing, speech, names, or occupations.”
“The Hasmonean period witnesses for the first time in the history of Judaism the establishment of processes by which outsiders can become insiders, non-Judaeans can become Judaeans, and non-Jews can become Jews.”
“...why did Ezra virtually ignore the marriages between Israelite women and foreign men?”
“The matrilineal principle is not attested in either the Bible or the literature of the second-temple period, including the Qumran scrolls. Even in the first century of our era it is still unknown to Philo, the New Testament, and Josephus. All of these texts seem to be familiar with a patrilineal system. The Mishnah, however, states the matrilineal principle (or, more accurately, the two halves of the matrilineal principle) as if it were agreed upon by all, and provides no reason or justification. It appears in the Mishnah like a bolt out of the blue.”
So. The big question: Were all our laws—Written and Oral—really delivered by the man Moses descending from a relatively nondescript mountain after several dozen days? Spoiler: this book does not exactly go there nor that far into the past though readers who identify as ‘traditional Jews’ may find some—but not all!--of what is covered in the ten chapters and four appendices of this book to contain some unsettling bits of information.
With cards out, by accounts traditional and non, I am halachically Jewish though keeping them out, my beliefs are far and way not traditional and being married to a non-Jew with (gasp!) non-(halachically) Jewish children, the law of matrilineal descent has always seemed a bit strange. But—and again, as noted here—there are multiple historic ways to look at it. The chances of it being an actual Oral Law given by Moses in spite of it having flimsy (at the very best) scriptural (ie, within the Chumash) support? Extremely low. More likely, as discussed in length in the penultimate chapter, it may have been a combination of an aversion to intermarriage, an emulation of similar Roman law, and also an aversion to intermingling in general.
Obviously there is more going on in The Beginnings of Jewishness than a discussion on one quirky several sentence ruling in the Mishnah. A lot more really from just how around two millennia ago one could not quite figure out just who is indeed Jewish, the difference between someone living in Judea and one practicing the faith of that land, when conversion went from simply ‘marrying in’ to the robust affair it is today, and finally settling the matter on whether or not we’re supposed to like Herod (OK, that last one may be answered in the first quote listed below).
What’s more, in spite of being an academic work, footnotes aside, it’s mostly not a difficult read. Lay readers, curious liberal Jews, and those wearing black-hats who want to dig a little bit deeper beyond “official” sources may find many hidden gems here.
Coda for eBook users: kindly note this book may have been an older transfer and is missing some of the creature comforts of newer eBooks. The formatting is odd to say the least. However, the footnotes work and being an academic work, that is probably the most important thing that can make or break a purchase.
---Notable Highlights---
“Most forms of ancient Judaism, I think, would have disapproved proved of Herod's murder of his wives and children.”
“Not a single ancient author says that Jews are distinctive because of their looks, clothing, speech, names, or occupations.”
“The Hasmonean period witnesses for the first time in the history of Judaism the establishment of processes by which outsiders can become insiders, non-Judaeans can become Judaeans, and non-Jews can become Jews.”
“...why did Ezra virtually ignore the marriages between Israelite women and foreign men?”
“The matrilineal principle is not attested in either the Bible or the literature of the second-temple period, including the Qumran scrolls. Even in the first century of our era it is still unknown to Philo, the New Testament, and Josephus. All of these texts seem to be familiar with a patrilineal system. The Mishnah, however, states the matrilineal principle (or, more accurately, the two halves of the matrilineal principle) as if it were agreed upon by all, and provides no reason or justification. It appears in the Mishnah like a bolt out of the blue.”
August 11, 2024
I read this book based on a misunderstanding. I am researching the origins of Israel, and I thought this book might shed some light on this. But the author understands Jewishness as we understand the term today as starting only around 200 BCE. Thus, he only spends about 6 pages or so discussing the OT. So although he admits that the Tanakh has "adumbrations, intimations, harbingers of the idea of religious conversion," he does not find Jewishness as a religion in the OT.
Nevertheless the reading about conversion to Judaism after 200 BCE makes for fascinating reading and I did not at all regret reading this material. I was less interested in the material concerning the matrilineal principle and mixed marriages, although I myself am the product of a mixed marriage. I was relieved to find I am not a mamzer, since my mother is a gentile!
It was fortuitous that I read this book immediately after reading Sarah Japhet's book on Chronicles, because Japhet and Cohen have an illuminating point of disagreement about Israelite ethnicity in the OT. Cohen is adamant that non-Israelites cannot ever become Israelites in the OT period. This sent me scurrying back to Japhet's book to confirm her rather radical suggestion that according to the Chronicler everyone who lived in the land of Israel were Israelites, regardless of ethnic origin. Japhet and Cohen also disagree on their interpretation of Isaiah 56.1-8, which speaks of foreigners that attach themselves to Yahweh. I thought it interesting that they both cite Kaufmann on this passage. While Cohen cites Kaufmann to support his position that in this period foreigners could not convert, Japhet says, "Even Kaufmann admits that Isaiah 56 'contains a flicker of the idea of religious proselytism,' but he defines those who 'joined' as Judaizers, not converts."
Nevertheless the reading about conversion to Judaism after 200 BCE makes for fascinating reading and I did not at all regret reading this material. I was less interested in the material concerning the matrilineal principle and mixed marriages, although I myself am the product of a mixed marriage. I was relieved to find I am not a mamzer, since my mother is a gentile!
It was fortuitous that I read this book immediately after reading Sarah Japhet's book on Chronicles, because Japhet and Cohen have an illuminating point of disagreement about Israelite ethnicity in the OT. Cohen is adamant that non-Israelites cannot ever become Israelites in the OT period. This sent me scurrying back to Japhet's book to confirm her rather radical suggestion that according to the Chronicler everyone who lived in the land of Israel were Israelites, regardless of ethnic origin. Japhet and Cohen also disagree on their interpretation of Isaiah 56.1-8, which speaks of foreigners that attach themselves to Yahweh. I thought it interesting that they both cite Kaufmann on this passage. While Cohen cites Kaufmann to support his position that in this period foreigners could not convert, Japhet says, "Even Kaufmann admits that Isaiah 56 'contains a flicker of the idea of religious proselytism,' but he defines those who 'joined' as Judaizers, not converts."
November 7, 2023
A historical perspective, informed by a lot of scholarly insight from an expert, on the "who is a Jew" question. Cohen surveys what we know of the historical record on how Jews viewed themselves, how others viewed them, who was "in" and who was "out", and how (and when) one could cross the boundary between "non-Jewishness" and "Jewishness". He explores the Rabbinic texts that resulted in the concept of the matrilineal principle, and posits a few explanations, all which have some support in either Rabbinic or contemporaneous literature, but none of which can be completely proven.
This book isn't an easy read, but it is very comprehensive. Those interested in how the matrilineal principle evolved could probably read just the last few chapters.
This book isn't an easy read, but it is very comprehensive. Those interested in how the matrilineal principle evolved could probably read just the last few chapters.
September 27, 2018
Although published in 1999, this book maintains its importance for understanding when and how (but not why) the matrilineal principle of Jewish identity came into being. Cohen's erudition and intelligence is impressive, though what one would expect of a Harvard professor (he was a professor at Brown when he wrote the book).
He leads the reader through ancient Greek and Latin sources and rabbinical arguments, patiently and with blunt and refreshing honesty.
Not always an easy read, it is always clear and cogent.
He leads the reader through ancient Greek and Latin sources and rabbinical arguments, patiently and with blunt and refreshing honesty.
Not always an easy read, it is always clear and cogent.
Read
October 6, 2021Fascinating book for those investigating the period of Jewish history from roughly 500 BCE to 200 CE. The author is not only a historian, but also a rabbi, and this makes for an intriguing view of history, with an appreciation of historical veracity and theological values. By looking at one aspect of Jewishness, the prohibition of intermarriage and the matrilineal principle through this period of history, we can see how the Talmud interprets these strictures and how the Talmud departs from historical truths in an effort of cultural preservation in the face of a diaspora reality.
October 5, 2018
Uninformative.
October 21, 2018
Not always relevant to my research but a fascinating insight into the debates around who is part of the Jewish people and the definitions of such terms as Jewishness, Jewish poeple and Judaism
December 12, 2009
the best take on jewish identity i've read to date, cohen puts his rabbinic background and anthropological know-how to good use, drawing solid conclusions after considering everything and anything between 70 C.E. and 1980 C.E. much like my thesis. must be coincidence.
Read
September 23, 2010"The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society) by Shaye J. D. Cohen (2001)"
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews