The Origins of Judaism, Yonatan Adler

[neilgodfrey]

But let's suppose for a moment that the model with Judaism/Samaritanism. In this model you have a group of priests who are "full Jews" or "full Israelites" whatever you want to call them and then a large body of non-priests. Is there evidence that all Jews followed all the ordinances of Moses? If not, maybe it preceded and inspired the early Christian community.

Such a possibility is indeed actually discussed in Adler and other archaeological research into ancient Judean practices. The same applies to pagan rituals, too. I don't know why you seem to assume no-one would have thought of that possibility.

Adler does not attempt to cover "all the ordinances of Moses". He is quite open to the high possibility that only a few observed some of the "laws" and that the general population was not part of that scene. All of this is addressed and examined and tested.

Could it be that the common Jews and Samaritans simply followed the 10 commandments? The other laws were for the priesthood.

In which case there would be a blanket ban on images and other gods and sabbath work -- or at least some sign of such a ban in some areas of "Jehud" and "Samaria". We have archaeological evidence relating to those commandments. That evidence points to the Hellenistic era as the earliest when the common people observed "the ten commandments".

Maybe at some period the whole 613 were imposed on the Jewish population. . . . Could the gospel have been written in an age where the Pharisees were attempting to impose the entire 613 laws on the Jewish population? Interesting possibilities.

Again, the archaeological and literary evidence testifies against this view. There is evidence that "the common" people were on the whole observant of certain Mosaic laws from the mid second century BCE.

But none of this implies Judaism only existed for as early as evidence of these practices have residue.

If we have no evidence for any form of distinctive Judaism before the Hellenistic era, but on the contrary have evidence that before the Hellenistic era Jews, both elite priests and commoners, were polytheistic, made use of idols and images for worship, marked the seventh day for market day, and were indistinguishable in religious practices from other surrounding peoples in Syria and Nabatea, then it is reasonable to conclude that "Judaism" of any kind was unknown before the Hellenistic era. If new evidence comes to light to change that view, fine, we'll adjust our conclusions. But till then we have to be led by the tangible, contemporary evidence.

Is it possible that we can be so confident in our suspicions that we are not interested in even reading what the evidence is. Like in the movies when an authority figure frustrates the audience by refusing to even hear the defence of the one he has just condemned.

[Secret Alias]

If we have no evidence for any form of distinctive Judaism before the Hellenistic era, but on the contrary have evidence that before the Hellenistic era Jews, both elite priests and commoners, were polytheistic, made use of idols and images for worship, marked the seventh day for market day, and were indistinguishable in religious practices from other surrounding peoples in Syria and Nabatea, then it is reasonable to conclude that "Judaism" of any kind was unknown before the Hellenistic era.

If this position is so self-evident then it must be Adler's own position. Right? Wrong. You're not allowing for all the possibilities. Here is Adler's work in Hebrew https://rationalbelief.org.il/wp-conten ... %D7%A8.pdf. His focus is rather narrow - essentially a ritual purity concern (immersion) which lays outside anything described in the Pentateuch.

[Secret Alias]

Yonathan Adler: Did the Hasmoneans Invent Judaism? (Answer: No)

[Secret Alias]

16:40 "There is no evidence of the observance of Torah Law before the middle of the second century BCE"
51:40 [loose paraphrase] "I think it is important to stress ... the Bible never makes the claim that Judaisn is ancient ... the Jews reject Judaism ... story after story the Israelites reject God ... this is the story of the Hebrew Bible ... every once and awhile there is a leader who [gets people to observe the Torah] ... if the Torah is forced upon us it doesn't stick/doesn't last. For the first millenium of Jewish history the Jewish people weren't keeping the Torah because it was forced on them."
55:00 "after the Babylonian period there was the Persian period ... this was the period of time when Judea was ruled by Persian kings, in my book I am arguing that the Persian period is an unlikely period for the emergence of Judaism."
105.21 "I want to distinguish between when a law might have been written down ... some of these laws might have been written down during the Babylonian period, I don't know, what I am interested in is when the masses knew about it and were practicing it and we don't have any evidence they were doing it during the Babylonian captivity"

[Secret Alias]

My take on Adler.

1. he won't admit the fact that "Jerusalem" doesn't appear in the Pentateuch means it's a northern Israelite text that only later was passed on to the son of a harlot people (= Judah's descendants)
2. since it is a northern Israelite document the Persian period is a great period for assuming for it's origins (i.e. the logic that doesn't work for the sons of harlot descendants of Judah works for the illustrious descendants of the perfect Joseph)
3. the Christian ideas regarding "only the 10 commandments came from heaven/God" was likely reflective of the state of religious life outside the priesthood in ancient Samaria. In other words, the average people only cared about the 10 commandments. What physical evidence would follow from religious observance of only the ten commandments? Not much. I suspect "Dositheos" wasn't a person but an idea viz. "god given."

It would be interesting to reread Philo's statements regarding the "Special Laws" (itself an interesting title).

[neilgodfrey]

My take on Adler.

1. he won't admit the fact that "Jerusalem" doesn't appear in the Pentateuch means it's a northern Israelite text that only later was passed on to the son of a harlot people (= Judah's descendants)
2. since it is a northern Israelite document the Persian period is a great period for assuming for it's origins (i.e. the logic that doesn't work for the sons of harlot descendants of Judah works for the illustrious descendants of the perfect Joseph)
3. the Christian ideas regarding "only the 10 commandments came from heaven/God" was likely reflective of the state of religious life outside the priesthood in ancient Samaria. In other words, the average people only cared about the 10 commandments. What physical evidence would follow from religious observance of only the ten commandments? Not much. I suspect "Dositheos" wasn't a person but an idea viz. "god given."

It would be interesting to reread Philo's statements regarding the "Special Laws" (itself an interesting title).

These are essentially the responses you have made to Gmirkin's theory. But you seem determined not to read a work that "challenges your beliefs" and have no interest in engaging with the actual evidence cited by either Gmirkin or Adler.

You don't even read my own comments. I have read Adler's book. I can assure you that his focus is not narrow and I have set out for you the breadth of his studies. You repeat the claim that observance of the ten commandments would not leave much trace in the archaeological record even though Adler and my own comment above demonstrates that this is simply not so. The evidence would be stark -- see the examples cited in my previous comment. Archaeologists have a lot to say on the evidence for and against a population observing the ten commandments. The first and second commandments do indeed leave their mark in the record and it is very noticeable against cultures where the first and second commandments are not part of the culture.

Oh, and Tamar was NOT a harlot. If she were the story in Gen 38 would lose its meaning and the punch line in the narrative would be pointless. Tamar was highly honoured in Jewish tradition -- again I have cited the evidence but you simply don't read it or ignore it. You don't seem to understand the difference between pretence and reality (certainly not the humour of the story!) and seem not to even know anything about Tamar's motivation -- but rely on a late hostile interpretation that was equally divorced from the original comprehension of the narrative and its reception history among the Judeans.

Why not read works that challenge your beliefs instead of simply leaving them aside because you can recite your beliefs that won't allow you to think they have anything to offer? I'm not being hostile. Trying to encourage you to think a little more broadly and to engage with other arguments (not just their conclusions by repeating your own beliefs once again).

[Secret Alias]

What "belief " is it that "Jerusalem" doesn't appear in the Pentateuch? It's like having sex with someone and noticing that certain things turn them on. As I am not the other person I will never be quite sure that my analysis is correct. Maybe it's not the what I am doing per se but the experience of being with me (not me per se but a generic attractive man). One will never know anything with absolute certainty. But "Jerusalem" not being mentioned is the end of the Pentateuch being a "Jewish" document. For me at least. Not sure that's "faith" any more than knowing how to create the right mise en scene, how to kiss, how touch a clitoris, how to make love etc. Experience at spotting bullshit is like any kind of experience. You know, you know, you know.

[Secret Alias]

Or it's like my dog. His breeder sent me a Xmas card with a phone number. We talked for about an hour. I know my dog. He has six different smiles. And on and on and on. No doubt about it. I know my dog. It's about being not having presuppositions and being attentive. Like being the first poster at this site to reference Win a Date With Tad Hamilton.

[neilgodfrey]

What "belief " is it that "Jerusalem" doesn't appear in the Pentateuch?

Rather than all the gratuitous adolescent sexual analogies you could try making the point at a relevant conceptual level relating to the belief systems of the authors and subsequent readers and the logic involved in your reasoning. Why not argue at a cerebral level rather than a libidinal one?

God does not appear in Esther: it does not follow that the book of Esther was written by an atheist.

You are assuming, presumably on the basis of later Jewish and rabbinic views about the importance of Jerusalem, that Jewish authors working together with Samaritans would have been so hung up about the importance of Jerusalem itself that they could not help themselves from mentioning Jerusalem in the Pentateuch. You are assuming that the later form of Judaism was the same as it was from the moment of its birth.

You are also assuming that the authors of the Pentateuch did not have enough nous to write a coherent story that for theological reasons intended to associate the centrality of Jerusalem with David and therefore could not reasonably have made an earlier appearance.

You are avoiding reading arguments which might actually challenge your view about Jerusalem and the significance of its explicit absence from the Pentateuch.

You are also clearly avoiding any comment that contradicts with evidence your earlier claims, such as, for just one example, that archaeologists do find very clear evidence of Judeans who followed the ten commandments and those who didn't.

[andrewcriddle]

What "belief " is it that "Jerusalem" doesn't appear in the Pentateuch?

Rather than all the gratuitous adolescent sexual analogies you could try making the point at a relevant conceptual level relating to the belief systems of the authors and subsequent readers and the logic involved in your reasoning. Why not argue at a cerebral level rather than a libidinal one?

God does not appear in Esther: it does not follow that the book of Esther was written by an atheist.

You are assuming, presumably on the basis of later Jewish and rabbinic views about the importance of Jerusalem, that Jewish authors working together with Samaritans would have been so hung up about the importance of Jerusalem itself that they could not help themselves from mentioning Jerusalem in the Pentateuch. You are assuming that the later form of Judaism was the same as it was from the moment of its birth.

You are also assuming that the authors of the Pentateuch did not have enough nous to write a coherent story that for theological reasons intended to associate the centrality of Jerusalem with David and therefore could not reasonably have made an earlier appearance.

You are avoiding reading arguments which might actually challenge your view about Jerusalem and the significance of its explicit absence from the Pentateuch.

You are also clearly avoiding any comment that contradicts with evidence your earlier claims, such as, for just one example, that archaeologists do find very clear evidence of Judeans who followed the ten commandments and those who didn't.

FWIW Hecataeus on the Jews around 300 BCE explicitly links Moses with the establishment of the temple at Jerusalem.

The leader of this colony was one Moses, a very wise and valiant man, who, after he had possessed himself of the country, amongst other cities, built that now most famous city, Jerusalem, and the temple there, which is so greatly revered among them.

Andrew Criddle