Isn't This an Argument for Fourth Century Judaism?

[Secret Alias]

If there were temple servants named in a fourth century BCE document it would appear that there was Judaism at least by the fourth century BCE.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27926110

[ABuddhist]

If there were temple servants named in a fourth century BCE document it would appear that there was Judaism at least by the fourth century BCE.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27926110

You are conflating the idea of a cult of YHWH in Judaea - which Gmirkin et al. do not dispute - with Judaism.

[Secret Alias]

What the fuck do I care what he thinks? Like he's the ultimate arbiter of truth, the highest court of appeal. He's just another guy with a queer theory that hangs out at this forum and gets published with Bob Price. I am asking again. Whether it is a strong or weak argument, isn't this evidence an argument for the existence of Judaism c. fourth century BCE? So now because of Gmirkin "we can't be sure" whether this family associated with the Jerusalem temple were always involved with the temple? What did they do before? Sell hamburgers?

[ABuddhist]

What the fuck do I care what he thinks? Like he's the ultimate arbiter of truth, the highest court of appeal. He's just another guy with a queer theory that hangs out at this forum and gets published with Bob Price. I am asking again. Whether it is a strong or weak argument, isn't this evidence an argument for the existence of Judaism c. fourth century BCE? So now because of Gmirkin "we can't be sure" whether this family associated with the Jerusalem temple were always involved with the temple? What did they do before? Sell hamburgers?

I agree with you that Gmirkin is not the ultimate arbiter of truth - but I was not referring to him alone as accepting that the Jewish temple's cult of YHWH predated Judaism. He and other scholars, such as Yonatan Adler and Philip R. Davies, by comparing the Biblical accounts with archaeological evidence, are fully willing to accept that in the area named Judaea, there was a cult, associated with a Persian-era temple and other locations, dedicated to YHWH. They disagree with you, though, that such a temple and its cult must be equated with Judaism. Judaism is more than worshipping YHWH, whether at a temple or elsewhere. Judaism is a religion defined by theology, rituals, and scriptures, which can exist apart from a temple to YHWH. In the same way, Buddhism is more than venerating the Buddha. Buddhism is a religion defined by faith in the Buddhas' tachings. For this reason, Hindus, even though they venerate the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, are not Buddhists - because Buddhas' teachings do not proclaim Buddhas to be mere avatars of gods.

[neilgodfrey]

He and other scholars, such as Yonatan Adler and Philip R. Davies, by comparing the Biblical accounts with archaeological evidence, are fully willing to accept that in the area named Judaea, there was a cult, associated with a Persian-era temple and other locations, dedicated to YHWH.

More than just Judea, Yahwist cults were everywhere, as I discuss at When Yahweh was at Peace with Other Gods. Here is a map of sites of Yahwist cults and theophorics that I include in that article - it shows the extent of where evidence of Yahwist worship has been found in the archaeological record:

yahweh-map2-e1676103220288.png (168.32 KiB) Viewed 112 times