The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

[Leucius Charinus]

David Hendin,
"Coins Provide Key Evidence in Historic Origins of Judaism"
(Review of Yonatan Adler, The Origins of Judaism).
At: American Numismatic Society,
February 8, 2023

https://www.academia.edu/96542213/David ... ary_8_2023

Hendlin quotes Lawler from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180981118/

Based on 15 years of studying textual and archaeological evidence, Yonatan Adler of Ariel University, in the West Bank, concludes that ordinary Judeans didn’t consistently celebrate Passover, hold the Sabbath sacred or practice other traditional forms of Jewish ritual until a century or so before the birth of Jesus. If his theory proves correct, then Judaism is, at best, Christianity’s elder sibling and a younger cousin to the religions of ancient Greece and Rome.

and

Barnea calls Adler’s book “important” and agrees that before the Hasmonean era, there seems to be “not a shred of awareness” of “any degree of familiarity” with the Hebrew Bible.

Critical voices are added, but it is pointed out that those critics have "not yet examined Adler's research." --- sounds just like critics here on this forum; don't read it, 'just know' it is wrong because it's not what we've ever considered before and it goes against our gut feelings.

The research of Gmirkin and Adler goes against the contemporary paradigms which have been inculcated into its students. Thinking outside the paradigm is tantamount to thinking outside the box. An act often frowned upon.

[Russell Gmirkin]

The research of Gmirkin and Adler goes against the contemporary paradigms which have been inculcated into its students. Thinking outside the paradigm is tantamount to thinking outside the box. An act often frowned upon.

Still, Adler's reception has on a whole been very positive. The criticism has been very mild, and predictably from those who haven't yet read his book.

[mlinssen]

The research of Gmirkin and Adler goes against the contemporary paradigms which have been inculcated into its students. Thinking outside the paradigm is tantamount to thinking outside the box. An act often frowned upon.

Still, Adler's reception has on a whole been very positive. The criticism has been very mild, and predictably from those who haven't yet read his book.

A criticism that has as yet been unanswered is the fact that I asked Adler about the quantification of the chalk vessels. He responded with data that demonstrate that about 1% of the dump finds consist of chalk artifacts

Which is no small matter to leave unaddressed, I would think - and in my opinion that would indicate that they were used for an by unclean Judaics at best. If they were to be utilised by a wider circle of "subscribers" so to say, that in turn would attest to a minute presence of Judaics in general within society at large

I have come at a quarter of the book front to back and still have to finish it - so YMMV and so may mine

Almost without exception, chalk vessels are found only at sites known to have been settled by Judeans, and production sites were found only in Judean regions.

Adler pointed me to and article that I'm trying to locate, but if chalk vessels were found in Judean sites alone AND comprised less than 1% - the combination of which I have to verify - then its use world be limited to a fraction of the people, and priestly use alone would perhaps be more likely.
All in all, Adler conducts solid research, even though he heavily relies on Josephus - but then again who doesn't

[Russell Gmirkin]

Still, Adler's reception has on a whole been very positive. The criticism has been very mild, and predictably from those who haven't yet read his book.

A criticism that has as yet been unanswered is the fact that I asked Adler about the quantification of the chalk vessels. He responded with data that demonstrate that about 1% of the dump finds consist of chalk artifacts

Which is no small matter to leave unaddressed, I would think - and in my opinion that would indicate that they were used for an by unclean Judaics at best. If they were to be utilised by a wider circle of "subscribers" so to say, that in turn would attest to a minute presence of Judaics in general within society at large

I have come at a quarter of the book front to back and still have to finish it - so YMMV and so may mine

Almost without exception, chalk vessels are found only at sites known to have been settled by Judeans, and production sites were found only in Judean regions.

Adler pointed me to and article that I'm trying to locate, but if chalk vessels were found in Judean sites alone AND comprised less than 1% - the combination of which I have to verify - then its use world be limited to a fraction of the people, and priestly use alone would perhaps be more likely.
All in all, Adler conducts solid research, even though he heavily relies on Josephus - but then again who doesn't

First, I think it is inaccurate to say that Yonatan Adler has left any question with regard to the quantification of chalk vessels “unanswered” or “unaddressed”. Yonatan Adler and Yuval Gadot have conducted the only statistical analysis on chalk vessels in archaeological sites. They published pretty much everything currently known about the proportion of chalk vessels to ceramic pottery finds in an article easily available on JSTOR, which I assume is the article Adler referred you to:

Yuval Gadot and Yonatan Adler, “A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Chalk Vessel Frequencies in Early Roman Jerusalem: A View from the City's Garbage Dump,” Israel Exploration Journal, 66/2 (2016), 202-219.

In his article he points out (as have other archaeologists) that part of the reason for the low numbers of chalk vessels is that these stone vessels were more durable than pottery vessels, and hence less liable to be broken and discarded in Jerusalem (or Gamala’s) garbage dumps (Gadot published on Gamala). The percentage of vessels in actual use in the periods in question was thus likely to be higher than the percentages of broken vessels found in the dumps.

The idea that priests were more likely to use chalk stone rather than ceramic vessels due to purity issues has been proposed by other archaeologists and is mentioned in the article. So you don’t bring up anything particularly new in mentioning priestly use. In any case, I don’t see how this is a criticism of Adler’s thesis. Adler argued that the Torah was likely initially observed by a few elites at best during the early Hellenistic Era, and that Torah observances by a wider Jewish population was only seen in the archaeological record starting in the second century BCE. That purity laws were mainly observed by priests even as late as the first century CE in Early Roman Jerusalem would tend to confirm that thesis, not undermine or contradict it.

Finally, I can’t figure out what you mean “used for an by unclean Judaics at best” in your post. Is there perhaps a language/translation issue here from Dutch?

[mlinssen]

Still, Adler's reception has on a whole been very positive. The criticism has been very mild, and predictably from those who haven't yet read his book.

A criticism that has as yet been unanswered is the fact that I asked Adler about the quantification of the chalk vessels. He responded with data that demonstrate that about 1% of the dump finds consist of chalk artifacts

Which is no small matter to leave unaddressed, I would think - and in my opinion that would indicate that they were used for an by unclean Judaics at best. If they were to be utilised by a wider circle of "subscribers" so to say, that in turn would attest to a minute presence of Judaics in general within society at large

I have come at a quarter of the book front to back and still have to finish it - so YMMV and so may mine

Almost without exception, chalk vessels are found only at sites known to have been settled by Judeans, and production sites were found only in Judean regions.

Adler pointed me to and article that I'm trying to locate, but if chalk vessels were found in Judean sites alone AND comprised less than 1% - the combination of which I have to verify - then its use world be limited to a fraction of the people, and priestly use alone would perhaps be more likely.
All in all, Adler conducts solid research, even though he heavily relies on Josephus - but then again who doesn't

First, I think it is inaccurate to say that Yonatan Adler has left any question with regard to the quantification of chalk vessels “unanswered” or “unaddressed”. Yonatan Adler and Yuval Gadot have conducted the only statistical analysis on chalk vessels in archaeological sites. They published pretty much everything currently known about the proportion of chalk vessels to ceramic pottery finds in an article easily available on JSTOR, which I assume is the article Adler referred you to:

Yuval Gadot and Yonatan Adler, “A Quantitative Analysis of Jewish Chalk Vessel Frequencies in Early Roman Jerusalem: A View from the City's Garbage Dump,” Israel Exploration Journal, 66/2 (2016), 202-219.

In his article he points out (as have other archaeologists) that part of the reason for the low numbers of chalk vessels is that these stone vessels were more durable than pottery vessels, and hence less liable to be broken and discarded in Jerusalem (or Gamala’s) garbage dumps (Gadot published on Gamala). The percentage of vessels in actual use in the periods in question was thus likely to be higher than the percentages of broken vessels found in the dumps.

The idea that priests were more likely to use chalk stone ceramic vessels due to purity issues has been proposed by other archaeologists and is mentioned in the article. So you don’t bring up anything particularly new in mentioning priestly use. In any case, I don’t see how this is a criticism of Adler’s thesis. Adler argued that the Torah was likely initially observed by a few elites at best during the early Hellenistic Era, and that Torah observances by a wider Jewish population was only seen in the archaeological record starting in the second century BCE. That purity laws were mainly observed by priests even as late as the first century CE in Early Roman Jerusalem would tend to confirm that thesis, not undermine or contradict it.

Finally, I can’t figure out what you mean “used for an by unclean Judaics at best” in your post. Is there perhaps a language/translation issue here from Dutch?

Thank you Russell, and yes that likely is the article. Yonathan and I have a lovely exchange on Twitter which I since have abandoned, and I'm having trouble locating the conv. I had removed my account but later reinstated it because people were inquiring after missing tweets, which naturally was an intended effect but one that I never worried about anyone actually carrying for that. That's the story there.
He didn't leave the question unanswered when I asked him about it, surely not.
And yes, he brought up the durability to me as well, but I don't believe that chalk is more durable than stone - I believe that to be the exact opposite, given the relatively incredible ease with which chalk could be worked when compared to stone

The idea of the priests is from his book, hence why I brought it up - certainly without claiming that to be a new find!
I don't understand why you think I criticise Adler's thesis in general, I find his book rather compelling really, and even state that in my post. "Solid research" is not a phrase that I toss around in the wild, certainly not among biblical academic. Your book attested to it, and now does Adler's - and please do realise that these are at the fringes of where I do mine, I'm not an authority of any kind on those. If any

The 'an' is missing a 'd' - I very frequently make typos, as you can see in "and article"

[Russell Gmirkin]

Still, Adler's reception has on a whole been very positive. The criticism has been very mild, and predictably from those who haven't yet read his book.

A criticism that has as yet been unanswered is the fact that I asked Adler about the quantification of the chalk vessels.

<snip>

<snip>
The idea that priests were more likely to use chalk stone [rather than] ceramic vessels due to purity issues has been proposed by other archaeologists and is mentioned in the article.
<snip>

Thank you Russell, and yes that likely is the article. Yonathan and I have a lovely exchange on Twitter which I since have abandoned, and I'm having trouble locating the conv. I had removed my account but later reinstated it because people were inquiring after missing tweets, which naturally was an intended effect but one that I never worried about anyone actually carrying for that. That's the story there.
He didn't leave the question unanswered when I asked him about it, surely not.
And yes, he brought up the durability to me as well, but I don't believe that chalk is more durable than stone - I believe that to be the exact opposite, given the relatively incredible ease with which chalk could be worked when compared to stone

The idea of the priests is from his book, hence why I brought it up - certainly without claiming that to be a new find!
I don't understand why you think I criticise Adler's thesis in general, I find his book rather compelling really, and even state that in my post. "Solid research" is not a phrase that I toss around in the wild, certainly not among biblical academic. Your book attested to it, and now does Adler's - and please do realise that these are at the fringes of where I do mine, I'm not an authority of any kind on those. If any

The 'an' is missing a 'd' - I very frequently make typos, as you can see in "and article"

I (incorrectly) inferred you were critical of his thesis because you led with the statement, "A criticism that has as yet been unanswered..." Thanks for the clarification.

Also, I apologize for a mistake in my posting I failed to catch. I intended to write "chalk stone [rather than] ceramic vessels" but "rather than" dropped out of the text. Chalk is an easily worked form of stone and chalk vessels more durable than pottery (ceramic) vessels.

Again, thanks for your comments.