The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
austendw
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by austendw »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:10 am The models you describe are born from the assumption that the biblical literature began in the times of the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah, let's say from the eighth and seventh centuries -- and then, of course, in the "creative window" of the Babylonian captivity. But is not the debate is over whether this assumption is justified?
I'm not sure precisely what you mean when you say these models are "are born from the assumption", but does it matter what they were born from? What matters is that the diachronic model is not tied to the assumption "that the biblical literature began in the times of the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah" and has moved on. That's why I was careful not to give absolute dates in my comment above. Much modern scholarship has ditched both the architecture, chronology and entire rationale of 19th-20th century theories. Modern scholars are rightly quite happy to unhitch Deuteronomy & Deuteronomistic writing from Josiah and the pre-Babylonian era entirely and try to locate it elsewhere. It is actually quite possible to date the whole process - from first scratches of the pen on parchment to the Greek translation - during a time span starting in the Persian, perhaps even the late Persian through to the Hellenistic period and I am pretty agnostic about absolute dates.

It seems to me that a close examination of the Hebrew, Greek, Samaritan & DSS text shows cumulative and continued authorial/editoria/scribal activity. Any reasonable model for the creation of the Pentateuch must explain these strata in a plausible way.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:05 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:10 am The models you describe are born from the assumption that the biblical literature began in the times of the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah, let's say from the eighth and seventh centuries -- and then, of course, in the "creative window" of the Babylonian captivity. But is not the debate is over whether this assumption is justified?
I'm not sure precisely what you mean when you say these models are "are born from the assumption", but does it matter what they were born from? What matters is that the diachronic model is not tied to the assumption "that the biblical literature began in the times of the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah" and has moved on. That's why I was careful not to give absolute dates in my comment above. Much modern scholarship has ditched both the architecture, chronology and entire rationale of 19th-20th century theories. Modern scholars are rightly quite happy to unhitch Deuteronomy & Deuteronomistic writing from Josiah and the pre-Babylonian era entirely and try to locate it elsewhere. It is actually quite possible to date the whole process - from first scratches of the pen on parchment to the Greek translation - during a time span starting in the Persian, perhaps even the late Persian through to the Hellenistic period and I am pretty agnostic about absolute dates.

It seems to me that a close examination of the Hebrew, Greek, Samaritan & DSS text shows cumulative and continued authorial/editoria/scribal activity. Any reasonable model for the creation of the Pentateuch must explain these strata in a plausible way.

Can I ask for an example of the strata (demonstrating "authorial/editorial/scribal activity") that undermines the Hellenistic authorship thesis of Gmirkin?
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by StephenGoranson »

When Torah was first written is one question.
When many tried to follow it is another question.
One opinion (not necessarily matching mine):

Jerusalem Post
'The Origins of Judaism': Finding how far back rabbinic tradition goes - review

Prof. Yonatan Adler’s book provides proofs both for and against how far back ‘rabbinic Judaism’ goes
By ARI ZIVOTOFSKY

The Origins of Judaism
By Yonatan Adler
Yale University Press
398 pages; $44.98

Did the Jews of ancient Israel, say 2,500 years ago, know about and practice a Judaism that looked similar to the Judaism of today with, for example, dietary laws, tefillin, circumcision, and mikveh? Prof. Yonatan Adler of Ariel University, an erudite researcher and experienced field archaeologist, seeks to answer this in his new book, using archaeological finds and ancient texts.

The Origins of Judaism is an engrossing read, well written and extensively documented. Adler observes that for most of the past 2,000 years, Jews have followed the myriad laws of the Torah, and although there were some small fringe groups, the dominant mode of practice has been “rabbinic Judaism.” As Adler explains, he is not addressing when the text of the Bible was written but rather what the evidence suggests about when rank-and-file Jews became aware of the biblical laws and began following them.

Adler presents a treasure trove of ancient texts (e.g., Josephus, Philo, Letter of Aristeas, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, assorted papyri) and archaeological findings related to a variety of commandments. The sources are enlightening, intriguing, sometimes surprising and, as he explains, prove without a shadow of a doubt that by 2,100 years ago, Jews in the Land of Israel practiced Judaism in a manner similar to today.

But what about a few hundred years earlier? Adler’s thesis is that it all started only about 2,100 to 2,200 years ago. Overall, he tackles about a dozen religious practices and tries to show that they only emerged in the first/second centuries BCE. His data are impressive, his conclusions less so.

For example, Adler presents evidence that he claims demonstrates that the Torah’s kosher dietary laws regarding forbidden species were not observed before the first century BCE. He provides abundant evidence for kashrut observance in the first/second century BCE. That alone is fascinating – for 2,100 years Jews have been keeping kosher! He reluctantly concedes that even earlier, pork was not widely eaten by Jews but refuses to attribute it to a religious taboo. He then states that substantial numbers of non-kosher fish bones were found in and around Jerusalem in periods earlier than the second century BCE – proof, he says, that the Torah’s dietary laws were not part of Jewish consciousness.

Adler summarizes: “Significant frequencies of scaleless [i.e., non-kosher] fish (especially catfish) have been found in Jerusalem and throughout Judea in all [emphasis added] assemblages available for analysis which date to the Iron Age II (ca. 950-586 BCE).”

“Significant frequencies of scaleless [i.e., non-kosher] fish (especially catfish) have been found in Jerusalem and throughout Judea in all [emphasis added] assemblages available for analysis which date to the Iron Age II (ca. 950-586 BCE).”

Surprisingly, while referencing sites with small numbers of fish bones, such as Area G (195 fish bones) and Ramat Rahel (48 bones), he inexplicably ignores the mother lode. The largest number of identifiable fish bones (a whopping 5,385) of any site in Israel from any period were found in the heart of the City of David, biblical Jerusalem, in the “rock-cut pool,” with over 96% kosher fish! Dated to the late ninth century BCE (Iron Age II), these bones strongly suggest that Jews in Jerusalem 2,900 years ago followed the biblical dietary laws, dining on breams, mullets, Nile perch and tuna.

Even if non-kosher fish bones prove lack of observance of the dietary laws, they do not necessarily prove lack of awareness. Persian-era Nehemiah (13:16) sharply criticizes Judea’s Jews: “And the Tyrians [who] abode therein were bringing fish and... selling [them] on the Sabbath....” Thus non-kosher fish (whose remnants were found in a Jewish area) perhaps were eaten by the non-Jewish merchants or purchased by non-observant but fully aware Jews.

Similar to today, when, despite widespread knowledge of kashrut laws, there are non-kosher restaurants in Israel, the prophet (Isaiah 66:17) castigated ancient Jews for consuming non-kosher. A lack of adherence does not prove lack of knowledge, as seen by the high percentage of non-kosher fish bones archaeologists find in Byzantine and early Islamic Jerusalem, periods well after the time that Adler concedes widespread knowledge of the dietary laws.

Furthermore, non-kosher remains could have explanations other than non-observance; e.g., future archaeologists may find remnants of pigs that Jews used to produce lifesaving heart valves or American footballs or other legitimate uses for non-kosher species.

ADLER DEVOTES a captivating chapter that tries to show that the biblical prohibition against depicting living creatures even when not intended as idolatrous became widely implemented only in the second century BCE. He asserts this based on findings from earlier periods – images of rulers and animals found on coins and seals, as well as figurines.

His argument falls apart if one travels forward in time. Israel is blessed with numerous ancient synagogues adorned with mosaics full of graphic depictions of humans and animals. The northern Huqoq synagogue (fifth century) has depictions of Samson, Jonah, Moses, and of Yael killing Sisera. The third-century Ein Gedi synagogue features geese and peacocks, while the sixth-century Beit Alpha synagogue shows the biblical scene of the binding of Isaac and a zodiac full of animals. Such depictions do not prove that third-to-sixth-century CE Jews were unfamiliar with biblical laws relating to figural art. They may have interpreted it differently than first-century BCE Jews, who interpreted it differently than fourth-century BCE Jews. Or it can indicate a waxing and waning of observance or a change in aesthetic preferences.

Did ancient biblical Jewish rituals really exist?
Adler uses lack of evidence to “prove” that certain rituals did not exist, such as not finding evidence of tefillin earlier than the second century BCE. Much more exciting, it seems to me, is that there is evidence of tefillin in the first century BCE. Organic leather boxes with parchment do not survive in most climates. All agree that tefillin were worn during the last 2,000 years in Europe, North Africa, and Babylonia, yet there are no remnants of “old” tefillin from those regions. That any tefillin survived for over 2,000 years is remarkable, and only thanks to the unique climatic conditions in the Judean Desert. For Adler to argue that the absence of even older tefillin proves their nonexistence is fallacious. After all, these Judean Desert tefillin were only found a few decades ago, and yet prior to their discovery even Adler would not have argued that observance of tefillin began only a few hundred years ago. Lack of evidence is simply not evidence of lack.

Adler provides copious notes and references, many to his own scientific papers, attesting to his expertise and long-standing interests, and these are wisely placed in the back of the book to keep the text flowing.

He addresses and attempts to discredit any hint of a question to his thesis. For example, fifth-century BCE texts from the southern Egyptian island of Elephantine mention Passover twice and the dates 15th to the 21st of the month, the days when Passover is observed in Nisan. As understood by almost all scholars, this is an amazing 2,500-year-old reference to Passover observance. In Adler’s reading, this is not explicit enough and therefore cannot be considered textual evidence for such early Passover observance.

As illustrated, his arguments often suffer from major flaws, and his many intriguing sources and artifacts often provide little support for his thesis. Finding a suggestion of lack of observance is not definitive proof of ignorance of the laws nor of lack of observance among other contemporaneous Jews. Even a cursory reading of the Bible paints a picture of the masses not always following the Torah’s rules; thus it is not surprising to discover evidence of laxity among the Iron Age II or Persian-era masses.

The examples brought in this book can edify but will likely not convince anyone one way or the other. Those believing that the biblical laws have been observed for over 3,000 years will be impressed by, for example, tefillin from over 2,000 years ago that resemble modern tefillin and a 2,500-year-old mention of Passover, and will find responses to Adler’s “proofs.” And a “non-believer” may accept Adler’s arguments that Judaism as practiced for the last 2,000 years was “invented” a mere 2,100 years ago.

This extensively researched, clearly written book is thus an interesting read, but one needs to be able to think for themselves and enjoy the information while being healthily skeptical about the author’s conclusions. 
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:04 pm When Torah was first written is one question.
When many tried to follow it is another question.
One opinion (not necessarily matching mine):

Jerusalem Post
'The Origins of Judaism': Finding how far back rabbinic tradition goes - review

Prof. Yonatan Adler’s book provides proofs both for and against how far back ‘rabbinic Judaism’ goes
By ARI ZIVOTOFSKY

The Origins of Judaism
By Yonatan Adler
Yale University Press
398 pages; $44.98

. . . . .


The examples brought in this book can edify but will likely not convince anyone one way or the other. Those believing that the biblical laws have been observed for over 3,000 years will be impressed by, for example, tefillin from over 2,000 years ago that resemble modern tefillin and a 2,500-year-old mention of Passover, and will find responses to Adler’s “proofs.” And a “non-believer” may accept Adler’s arguments that Judaism as practiced for the last 2,000 years was “invented” a mere 2,100 years ago.

. . . .
Ooh ... naughty naughty -- as anyone who has read Adler's book and compare with the author of this review will quickly see -- unless, that is, one is "a believer" (a precondition that the author seems to admit is necessary in order to reject its findings)

A detailed response to follow..
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by neilgodfrey »

The backlash against anything that casts doubt on the biblical narrative -- It's called "zionist archaeology" ... https://www.aljazeera.com/program/insid ... qsa-mosque --- the determination to establish the "truth" of the biblical narrative, even among secular zionists.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by Peter Kirby »

Happy birthday.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by neilgodfrey »

Thanks for reminding me of the inevitable!
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:04 pm When Torah was first written is one question.
When many tried to follow it is another question.
One opinion (not necessarily matching mine):

Jerusalem Post
'The Origins of Judaism': Finding how far back rabbinic tradition goes - review

Prof. Yonatan Adler’s book provides proofs both for and against how far back ‘rabbinic Judaism’ goes
By ARI ZIVOTOFSKY

The Origins of Judaism
By Yonatan Adler
Yale University Press
398 pages; $44.98

. . . . . . .

Surprisingly, while referencing sites with small numbers of fish bones, such as Area G (195 fish bones) and Ramat Rahel (48 bones), he inexplicably ignores the mother lode. The largest number of identifiable fish bones (a whopping 5,385) of any site in Israel from any period were found in the heart of the City of David, biblical Jerusalem, in the “rock-cut pool,” with over 96% kosher fish! Dated to the late ninth century BCE (Iron Age II), these bones strongly suggest that Jews in Jerusalem 2,900 years ago followed the biblical dietary laws, dining on breams, mullets, Nile perch and tuna.

. . . . . . .
Just to give but one instance of the mischievous nature of Z's review....

Z completely ignores Adler's discussion on pig remains in order to focus on the apparent "inexplicable omission" of one site of fish remains. Here is what Adler concluded from the evidence on pig remains that Z "inexplicably" omitted from his review (p. 40):

It is true that pork was not being (regularly) consumed by the highlanders of the early Iron Age or afterward by the Judeans of the Southern Kingdom, but for the most part pork was concurrently also not being eaten by almost any other group settled anywhere in the region! The reasons for this are most readily sought in the kind of ecological and socioeconomic motivations outlined above; there is no apparent reason to assume that anyone was practicing deliberate avoidance of pig consumption because of some sort of cultural taboo against the animal.

Adler then comes to the fish. His first sentence here directs the reader to an earlier article that discusses in detail each of the deposits:

Citations for all data on the fish remains discussed here are available in Adler and Lernau, “The Pentateuchal Dietary Proscription.”

Here is the relevant table from that article, the one that include the particular deposit Z says Adler "inexplicably" omitted from his consideration:
Screenshot 2023-06-03 at 4.03.48 pm.png
Screenshot 2023-06-03 at 4.03.48 pm.png (409.54 KiB) Viewed 16259 times

Here is the relevant section of Adler's discussion (pp 47f):

Significant frequencies of scaleless fish (especially catfish) have been found in Jerusalem and throughout Judea in all assemblages available for analysis which date to the Iron Age II (ca. 950-586 BCE). These in­clude eight assemblages unearthed in various areas on the eastern hill of Jerusalem—throughout the so-called Ophel, the eastern slope of the City of David, and the Giv'ati Parking Lot. Excavations at all these areas un­earthed hundreds of catfish bones along with dozens of calcified remains of shark cartilage. These remains all derived from loci dating variously from the late ninth or early eighth century BCE until the Babylonian destruc­tion of the city. Another important assemblage, deriving from a single de­posit from the late seventh or early sixth century BCE in a small pit under the floor of the central courtyard of the palatial complex at Ramat Rahel, included 48 fish bones, of which 23 belonged to catfish. On the basis of the skeletal elements and the size of the bones, there were at least seven indi­vidual catfish inside the pit (with a total weight estimated at about 10 kilo­ grams!). Scaleless fish remains were also uncovered outside the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, at Lachish (17 out of 120 total NISP). Dietary con­sumption patterns of scaleless fish at all the Iron Age II Southern Kingdom sites analyzed are comparable with those at sites associated with Philis­tine (Ashkelon) and Phoenician (Acre and Tel Kabri) material cultures. Although far fewer data are currently available from sites associated with the political boundaries of the Northern Kingdom, a small assemblage of fish remains from Tel Megiddo suggests that scaleless fish were consumed at northern sites as well.

In summary, these data indicate that scaleless fish, and especially cat­fish, were being consumed regularly by Judeans throughout the first half of the first millennium BCE. . . .

Z's review then proceeds to argue, essentially, that any evidence at all proves the Bible true. If there is non kosher food around, it proves the Bible is true when it said there were disobedient Israelites and Jews. If the stats are comparable to those of gentile neighbouring areas, then maybe they were being converted.... no, I just made that argument up.

Oh, and Z uses a bit of hyperbole when he refers to "over 96%" -- no, the figure actually represents just under 96%. But what's a few points between a believer and his Bible?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:53 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:04 pm When Torah was first written is one question.
When many tried to follow it is another question.
One opinion (not necessarily matching mine):

Jerusalem Post
'The Origins of Judaism': Finding how far back rabbinic tradition goes - review

Prof. Yonatan Adler’s book provides proofs both for and against how far back ‘rabbinic Judaism’ goes
By ARI ZIVOTOFSKY

The Origins of Judaism
By Yonatan Adler
Yale University Press
398 pages; $44.98

. . . . . . .

Surprisingly, while referencing sites with small numbers of fish bones, such as Area G (195 fish bones) and Ramat Rahel (48 bones), he inexplicably ignores the mother lode. The largest number of identifiable fish bones (a whopping 5,385) of any site in Israel from any period were found in the heart of the City of David, biblical Jerusalem, in the “rock-cut pool,” with over 96% kosher fish! Dated to the late ninth century BCE (Iron Age II), these bones strongly suggest that Jews in Jerusalem 2,900 years ago followed the biblical dietary laws, dining on breams, mullets, Nile perch and tuna.

. . . . . . .
Just to give but one instance of the mischievous nature of Z's review....

Z completely ignores Adler's discussion on pig remains in order to focus on the apparent "inexplicable omission" of one site of fish remains. Here is what Adler concluded from the evidence on pig remains that Z "inexplicably" omitted from his review (p. 40):

It is true that pork was not being (regularly) consumed by the highlanders of the early Iron Age or afterward by the Judeans of the Southern Kingdom, but for the most part pork was concurrently also not being eaten by almost any other group settled anywhere in the region! The reasons for this are most readily sought in the kind of ecological and socioeconomic motivations outlined above; there is no apparent reason to assume that anyone was practicing deliberate avoidance of pig consumption because of some sort of cultural taboo against the animal.

Adler then comes to the fish. His first sentence here directs the reader to an earlier article that discusses in detail each of the deposits:

Citations for all data on the fish remains discussed here are available in Adler and Lernau, “The Pentateuchal Dietary Proscription.”

Here is the relevant table from that article, the one that include the particular deposit Z says Adler "inexplicably" omitted from his consideration:

Screenshot 2023-06-03 at 4.03.48 pm.png


Here is the relevant section of Adler's discussion (pp 47f):

Significant frequencies of scaleless fish (especially catfish) have been found in Jerusalem and throughout Judea in all assemblages available for analysis which date to the Iron Age II (ca. 950-586 BCE). These in­clude eight assemblages unearthed in various areas on the eastern hill of Jerusalem—throughout the so-called Ophel, the eastern slope of the City of David, and the Giv'ati Parking Lot. Excavations at all these areas un­earthed hundreds of catfish bones along with dozens of calcified remains of shark cartilage. These remains all derived from loci dating variously from the late ninth or early eighth century BCE until the Babylonian destruc­tion of the city. Another important assemblage, deriving from a single de­posit from the late seventh or early sixth century BCE in a small pit under the floor of the central courtyard of the palatial complex at Ramat Rahel, included 48 fish bones, of which 23 belonged to catfish. On the basis of the skeletal elements and the size of the bones, there were at least seven indi­vidual catfish inside the pit (with a total weight estimated at about 10 kilo­ grams!). Scaleless fish remains were also uncovered outside the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, at Lachish (17 out of 120 total NISP). Dietary con­sumption patterns of scaleless fish at all the Iron Age II Southern Kingdom sites analyzed are comparable with those at sites associated with Philis­tine (Ashkelon) and Phoenician (Acre and Tel Kabri) material cultures. Although far fewer data are currently available from sites associated with the political boundaries of the Northern Kingdom, a small assemblage of fish remains from Tel Megiddo suggests that scaleless fish were consumed at northern sites as well.

In summary, these data indicate that scaleless fish, and especially cat­fish, were being consumed regularly by Judeans throughout the first half of the first millennium BCE. . . .

Z's review then proceeds to argue, essentially, that any evidence at all proves the Bible true. If there is non kosher food around, it proves the Bible is true when it said there were disobedient Israelites and Jews. If the stats are comparable to those of gentile neighbouring areas, then maybe they were being converted.... no, I just made that argument up.

Oh, and Z uses a bit of hyperbole when he refers to "over 96%" -- no, the figure actually represents just under 96%. But what's a few points between a believer and his Bible?
I suggested here that there is a potential ambiguity in the prohibition on scaleless water creatures and that it is possible that the interpretation changed in Hellenistic times.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

Post by DCHindley »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:09 pm Happy birthday.
Passed that on to my wife, whose b'day is today.

Hopefully she'll get a laugh, as I did, from this random coincidence.

:cheers:
Post Reply