Is exclusive Yahwehism even plausible prior to the Hasmonaeans?

[rgprice]

The Pentateuch itself is fundamental exclusivist. It sets barriers between worshipers of YHWH and others.

Circumcision is a form of physical distinction that separates one group from others. Circumcision is not a "later" development, it is integral to the root of the story.

Genesis 17:
4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you.

It seems to me that whoever wrote this at least already knew the material from the book of Kings. They at least already knew the story of the Israelite kingdoms. Did they also already know of the success of the Hasmonaeans?

All of the evidence indicates that as of at lest the middle of the Persian era, "Jews" were fairly happily getting along within the Persian empire. They were not exclusive worshipers of YHWH, they were not xenophobic, they integrated with other cultures, they accepted Persian rule, they were getting on with their lives.

What purpose would the stories of the Pentateuch serve?

The stories are clearly very nationalistic. They implore the follower to isolate themselves from those of other cultures, to reject other gods, to mark themselves as different, to obey a different set of laws than those of other nations, the engage in unique dietary restrictions. They call to nationalistic pride and the glory days of military domination. None of this is conducive to living in harmony within a empire dominated by another culture.

Why would a priesthood even set forth these stories in an environment where they could only lead to strife and problems?

These types of writings in ancient times were seldom what they claimed to be. They were also seldom truly historical accounts and more often aspirational. Why would Jewish priests operating within the confines of the Persian state be producing such works?

Look at the boundaries of Israel according to Numbers and the Hasmonean kingdom. It seems to me that either these boundaries were produced shortly prior to the Maccabean revolt, or shortly after it, laying out the aspirational goals of the Hasmonean leaders.

Map_Land_of_Israel.jpg (116.97 KiB) Viewed 1674 times

hasmonean.png (194.1 KiB) Viewed 1674 times

[neilgodfrey]

All of the evidence indicates that as of at lest the middle of the Persian era, "Jews" were fairly happily getting along within the Persian empire. They were not exclusive worshipers of YHWH, they were not xenophobic, they integrated with other cultures, they accepted Persian rule, they were getting on with their lives.

For a more rounded picture you might want to read

• Granerød, Gard. “‘By the Favour of Ahuramazda I Am King’: On the Promulgation of a Persian Propaganda Text among Babylonians and Judaeans.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 44, no. 4–5 (2013): 455–80. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700631-12340387.

The suggestion here is that the YHW worshipers got along fine because they either accepted Ahuramazda as the supreme god with YHW a subordinate deity or identified YWH with Ahuramazda as "the god of heaven". Granerød sees evidence for both.

Some also would put the destruction of the temple of Marduk in this context of the requirement of subjects to acknowledge Ahuramazda as supreme since Ahuramazda was the one who granted sovereignty to the Persian emperor. (That happened after Cyrus since Cyrus saw Marduk as his benefactor.)

[MrMacSon]

So what you are proposing is that the Pentateuch was produced by Samaritans in the Mt Gerizim community during a period of autonomous rule there, correct?

Samaritans and Judeans together. Both appear, from what I am able to gather, to be led by the priests of the Yahweh cult at the time.

• The time-period being?
  ( ~310 BCE to ~270 BCE ?? )

[neilgodfrey]

So what you are proposing is that the Pentateuch was produced by Samaritans in the Mt Gerizim community during a period of autonomous rule there, correct?

Samaritans and Judeans together. Both appear, from what I am able to gather, to be led by the priests of the Yahweh cult at the time.

• The time-period being?
  ( ~310 BCE to ~270 BCE ?? )

Whenever the Pentateuch was being written -- Persian or Hellenistic era -- the evidence that I learned was now acceptable in the current scholarly guild (thanks to Stephen Goranson's posting of the link to a recent conference on Yahwism under the Achaemenids) is that the Yahwist priests of both Jehud/Judea and Samaria cooperated in its production.

[neilgodfrey]

Just one point -- Yahwism can be a fairly loose term. The worship of Yahweh prior to the Pentateuch was very loose and woolly in the sense that it was found all over the place from north Syria to the Negev desert. Yahweh or YHW was worshiped alongside other gods, even arguably approving child sacrifice. Once we talk of the YHWH of the Bible we have a very different "beast".

[rgprice]

Yes, but the point I'm getting at that it seem that the "values" of the Pentateuch are incompatible with the status of a subject population. The Pentateuch is literature of a society that is seeking to forge its own destiny. A people who will not be subjugated, who look back on subjugation and say never again.

This is not a religion that is compatible with peaceful coexistence within a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire.

Thus, I'm saying, it seems to require that the religion, that the Pentateuch, was developed either during the Hasmonean period, or shortly before it.

[neilgodfrey]

This is not a religion that is compatible with peaceful coexistence within a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire.

Certainly under the Ptolemies there was peaceful coexistence. The problem with the Seleucids started only after a program of forced Hellenization upon the Yahwists. And for most of Roman rule the Judeans appear quite okay with being ruled -- no resentments beyond those of any other conquered region. The troubles only started as a result of stupidity and bastardry of a Roman legate whose reactions to racial tensions led to a wider scale uprising:

There is no need to deny some measure of anti-Roman sentiment among Judaeans ever since 63 B.C., although it has left few if any traces. And one could presumably have found resentment among Samarians, Ascalonites, Gadarenes, Scythopolitans, and Nabataeans. But such grumbling does not usually start wars against great powers. The Judaean-Roman conflict broke out, I have argued, not from anti-Roman ideas or dreams among the uniquely favoured Judaean population, but from the sort of thing that more commonly drives nations to arms: injury, threats of more injury, perceived helplessness, the closure of avenues of redress, and ultimately the concern for survival. -- p. 584 of Steve Mason's book on the war

The evidence for religious and messianic hopes motivating further rebellion is mainly evident in the times of Trajan and Hadrian. Many read messianic motives into Josephus but Josephus, unreliable as he is in many ways, simply offers no reasons for believing there were long-standing simmering of desire for a Yahwist rebellion against Rome for almost the entire duration of Roman rule.

[neilgodfrey]

Many people have also said Islam is incompatible with values of peaceful coexistence with others -- despite the many periods and places of historical record to the contrary. Ditto with Judaism, and Chritianity for that matter. Texts are texts -- they do not control minds. Minds interpret texts and make of them what they will according to perceived needs, situations, scarcities, etc etc you name it.

In other words, historical circumstances have always determined how people interpret their texts. "Religions" don't have values -- they are abstract concepts and words inscribed somewhere. But people are the active agents and interpreters.

[rgprice]

Certainly under the Ptolemies there was peaceful coexistence. The problem with the Seleucids started only after a program of forced Hellenization upon the Yahwists.

We don't know that. The only description of events comes from Hasmonean propaganda. There is no verifiable evidence that any aspect of the Maccabee story is true.

And for most of Roman rule the Judeans appear quite okay with being ruled -- no resentments beyond those of any other conquered region. The troubles only started as a result of stupidity and bastardry of a Roman legate whose reactions to racial tensions led to a wider scale uprising:

This is not at all clear either. The Qumranic material is clearly something of another order. It does not stem from specific grievances against the Romans. It is deeply rooted in the ideas of the Pentateuch.

I would say that the tension among Jews was between Jews who lived, like many modern Jews, according to their real life experiences and relationships with the society around them, and the Jews who lived according to the tenants of the scriptures. Even today, Orthodox Jews face constant conflict with surrounding cultures. There are constant and on-going legal battles between Orthodox Jewish communities and host nations all over the world.

The War Scroll and other such materials from Qumran are clearly derived from the ideas of the Pentateuch, they aren't the products of people trying to "twist" Judaism into something that it was not in order to deal with real-world conflicts. Instead, the Qurmaric writings foment conflict where it did not need to exist.

There had to be only one God, recognized and worshiped by everyone on earth. Every head had to bow to Lord YHWH. Everyone must follow the law. Peace can only exist on earth once every single individual had adopted Judaism. The law must be obeyed in full, at all times, with no exceptions. There is a land promised to the Jews by God, that they have a God-given right to rule and administer with no interference. The Jews should slaughter anyone who interferes with their rule of the Promised Land. All of these ideas come directly from the Pentateuch and other scriptures such as Isaiah.

The evidence for religious and messianic hopes motivating further rebellion is mainly evident in the times of Trajan and Hadrian. Many read messianic motives into Josephus but Josephus, unreliable as he is in many ways, simply offers no reasons for believing there were long-standing simmering of desire for a Yahwist rebellion against Rome for almost the entire duration of Roman rule.

I don't know how you can read the War Scroll and say that.

[neilgodfrey]

Certainly under the Ptolemies there was peaceful coexistence. The problem with the Seleucids started only after a program of forced Hellenization upon the Yahwists.

We don't know that. The only description of events comes from Hasmonean propaganda. There is no verifiable evidence that any aspect of the Maccabee story is true.

You are quite right to be wary of single source propaganda. But if you can get a hold of Margaret Williams's The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: A Diasporan Sourcebook, there is chapter listing primary sources for "Jewish interaction with Greek and Roman authorities". There is a lot of data there that I suggest needs to be addressed in any hypothesis pointing to a kind of inevitability of the Jewish (biblica0) religion being by nature incapable of living under the rule of others.

And for most of Roman rule the Judeans appear quite okay with being ruled -- no resentments beyond those of any other conquered region. The troubles only started as a result of stupidity and bastardry of a Roman legate whose reactions to racial tensions led to a wider scale uprising:

This is not at all clear either. The Qumranic material is clearly something of another order. It does not stem from specific grievances against the Romans. It is deeply rooted in the ideas of the Pentateuch.

Yes, but if we are looking at a society as a whole, along with its different political divisions and loyalties, some might think it is a bit too "courageous" to rely on certain interpretations of those scrolls as our guide for large-scale social and political dispositions and movements, including economic and social issues among various sectors of Judean society in Roman times and their relations with various rulers, both Roman and their proxies.

I would say that the tension among Jews was between Jews who lived, like many modern Jews, according to their real life experiences and relationships with the society around them, and the Jews who lived according to the tenants of the scriptures. Even today, Orthodox Jews face constant conflict with surrounding cultures. There are constant and on-going legal battles between Orthodox Jewish communities and host nations all over the world.

That is very true. But some would argue that it is evidence that can be turned against the hypothesis you are advancing about the "nature of biblical Jewish religion". It demonstrates that people interpret their texts. It is not valid to say that only the group -- always a minority, I am pretty sure -- who interprets their texts absolutely literally is the only valid representative of their religion. I think most religious leaders and most religious people in the world of all stripes will disagree strongly with that idea.

There had to be only one God, recognized and worshiped by everyone on earth. Every head had to bow to Lord YHWH. Everyone must follow the law. Peace can only exist on earth once every single individual had adopted Judaism. The law must be obeyed in full, at all times, with no exceptions. There is a land promised to the Jews by God, that they have a God-given right to rule and administer with no interference. The Jews should slaughter anyone who interferes with their rule of the Promised Land. All of these ideas come directly from the Pentateuch and other scriptures such as Isaiah.

Your description sounds like the Islamic interpretation of political Islamists. The reality is that most Muslims and Jews treat such claims as ideals and not as a guide to how they should act in the world -- both today and historically. Apocalyptic literature, for example, can be seen as a product of a need to rationalize such "ideals" with reality -- the war is relegated to a future time when gods and angels get involved.

The evidence for religious and messianic hopes motivating further rebellion is mainly evident in the times of Trajan and Hadrian. Many read messianic motives into Josephus but Josephus, unreliable as he is in many ways, simply offers no reasons for believing there were long-standing simmering of desire for a Yahwist rebellion against Rome for almost the entire duration of Roman rule.

I don't know how you can read the War Scroll and say that.

It is not an uncommon view in the scholarly literature. The War Scroll only speaks of one sector of a society and even that needs to be interpreted within the context of the larger society and its ideas -- I think it is a mistake to interpret a society and its ideas through a Qumran scroll.

I fully agree that the Yahwism of Exodus-Joshua is intolerant of rival gods and infidels. But we still have the fact that Yahwists were put in charge of Samaria and Judea by their ruling overlords and Romans even gave them special privileges to allow them to practice their religion.

That's why I think that along with analysing the biblical literature it is just as vital to understand how it was interpreted, what the literary goals were, etc. We can default to a strict literary interpretation but that is just as much an interpretation as any other. I posted somewhere recently some works that argue that certain laws were never meant to be applied literally in the real world but were literary constructs with quite different purposes.

Even if an author of a genocidal command in Exodus really wanted it to be carried out literally in his own day, if most of his colleagues did not interpret his text that way then can we say that "the religion itself" commanded genocide in the real world here and now, or should we interpret the religion though the words of its various adherents?