A link to purchase Prof. Adler’s new book The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal (affiliated): Kindle amzn.to/3jYiiEG Hardcover amzn.to/3Ixfk41
Again, thank you for this post. The whole discussion about the emergence of the Abramistic religions makes much more sense from an historical point of view. It´s not only about Judaism but much more for it´s younger siblings. Especially the adoption of Judaism in other regions (Yemen and probably the Khazars) and the rise of the early Islam makes sense from this point of view.
Thanks for both these conversations with Professor Adler. I look forward to his next book as the current book does raise the question: how did this form of Judaism emerge/transition from the post-exilic ancient Israelite (ancient Judean) religion? Were those Hasidim he mentioned proto-rabbinic?
I am surprised that Ezra’s reading of the Torah to the people (Nehemiah 8) is not given more space. I would assume that that was an important event in the path to general observation, even though some of the customs (e.g. mikveh bath) were introduced later.
@Kedem Inane argument, so we don’t have evidence for Troy right?We can’t know anything about the ancient world according to your minimalist nonsense. Oral tradition is evidence. Archeology is not evidence of anything lmao Comparative linguistics is a much less biased, propagandized, and far more academic field than archeology. We can’t trust a field incapable of identifying their own Osracons, with figures like Zahi Hawass that make repairs covering up archeological data. Sorry not sorry. Time to dismantle your kayfabe.
Great interview. One archaeological discovery that pushes back at the observance of the Sabbath commandment before the Hasmonean period would be the Mesad Hashavyahu Ostracon, probably from the reign of Josiah (late 7th century BCE.). This discovery itself would not negate his thesis that mainstream Judasiam did not exist en masse till the later era, but it does show that some, even a farmer on the outskirts of Josiah's kingdom, was observing the Sabbath almost 500 years earlier.
@@Achill101 That it is reading a lot into a vague text that is simply saying the equivalent of bring bread on Saturday. It doesn't prove they were observing the sabbath anymore than me asking my wife to make bread for Saturday one random day. The problem is that would be the sole archeological evidence for Sabbath observance for centuries.
As far as the discussion about pigs and goats go, it's one thing if people over a large region don't commonly eat one or the other, but if one relatively small region doesn't show signs of consuming pork (or goat meat), while their neighbors do, that's more of a sign that they're deliberately avoiding it for one reason or another. Whether or not the full Torah prohibition on pork existed at an early date, it's meaningful if a cultural practice of not eating pork existed in ancient Isreal and Judah that was distinct from other cultures around them. And I believe there's at least some evidence of that, dating back to the earliest days.
In the case of pork, I don't know why Adler doesn't talk about this since it's common knowledge, but pork bones in Israeli archaeological sites have been tested for DNA. In Bronze Age sites that preserve pork bones, these were mostly boar from the region. In Iron Age sites, the bones come from domesticated Aegean breeds. In modern Levantine boar populations, the boars are genetic descendants of the Aegean pigs. So a more obvious answer to why pork is easier to find in Philistine sites is because they brought the animals there from across the sea. The indigenous locals probably didn't eat pork because they originally didn't have easy access to them (it takes some effort to bring down wild boar, which isn't that common in deserts anyway), then because they developed their taboos in direct response to competition against the Philistines.
@@andrewsuryali8540 so the whole (ancient) world eating pork, just a small strip in Judea the pork is currently out of of stock, how funny is that. I m sorry I don t find your proposal is any more obvious at all.
@@peterk.6930 Oh, you seem to be missing the context here. Pig domestication in the Middle East started falling off around 2000 BCE and fell off precipitously around 1200 BCE. Pork was not eaten or was only eaten in very small amounts across the entire Fertile Crescent starting from 1000 BCE. It wasn't just in the Levant; Babylonians suddenly stopped eating pork too. People suddenly stopped keeping domesticated pigs. Eating pork only returned in the Mesopotamian region around the time of the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Their pigs were imported from what is today Anatolia. Basically, these people stopped having domesticated pigs around the time of the Bronze Age Collapse and only regained domesticated pigs much later from outside sources. The only cultures that consistently kept domesticated pigs in the region were the Egyptians and the Mediterranean settlers (the Philistines and other "Sea People"). The situation you're describing, with only a sliver of the Levant not eating pork, only happened later around the 8th century BCE, by which time Israel's existence as a kingdom and the Israelite religion itself had been attested to for over a century. Even then, it wasn't exclusive yet. All Israelite dynasties until the fall of Samaria ruled over a territory where some settlements still ate some pork. In Judah it's even more obvious as the Philistine cities there persisted in their pork-eating ways until they were destroyed in the 7th century.
@@andrewsuryali8540 But that's kind of the point, right? If by the 8th century we can document pork being a cultural distinction between Israelite groups and others in the region, that's evidence. Whether it was already a cultic taboo or simply a cultural practice is harder to know from archaeological evidence, but by that point it's clearly not just "pigs weren't available".
@@jeffmacdonald9863 In the 8th century, Philistine cities show evidence of domesticated pigs and pork consumption, but surrounding villages don't. In Israel and Judah, there are no signs of pig domestication outside of settlements in the Jordan marshes and near forests, but there are signs of pork consumption in small amounts in some settlements. This suggests that Philistines, Israelites and Judahites would eat pork if it was made available but mostly didn't raise pigs themselves. Combining the evidence, it looks like for some reason the art of raising domesticated pigs, or the availability of domesticated pigs to begin with, was somehow limited to the Philistine cities in this era. It could also be economic, as with the goat example. By the 8th century Israelites and Judahites, like all other native Levantines, had spent the past two centuries not eating pigs, so there would have been no incentive for their farmers to raise pigs. There might have been no market for pork just because it was viewed as alien by the locals, despite their ancestors eating pork originally. Philistines were eating pork all the way through this period, so they always had a market and an incentive to raise pigs. In any case, what the evidence shows is that availability was more likely the driving factor behind the lack of pork consumption. What is more interesting is that most people living in this era who weren't part of the elites would have had a chance to eat meat only after sacrifices during festivals. The pork consumption in Philistine cities can be explained by the elites living there, who would have had access to meat all year round, but when an Israelite village is found with evidence of pork consumption, this means their local priest must have sacrificed a pig, which suggests that in this period the taboo was either non-existent or not enforced universally. The taboo probably came later, possibly during the short rise of Judah after the destruction of Israel by the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the 7th century. All the Philistine cities were also destroyed in the same great war and suddenly pork consumption dropped precipitously in the Levant. No pig farmers, no pork. This was probably also when the local boar population started getting replaced by Aegean pigs, let loose from their destroyed cities. It was probably during this period that the people of Judah (who also included refugees from fallen Israel) started looking around and recognizing that not eating pork was one of the things that separated them from encroaching neighbors. In any case, pork consumption remained low in the region through the destruction of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonian Empire and subsequent Persian period. There was an uptick during the Hellenistic era with the arrival of colonists from Greece, then we had the clear distinction of porkless Jewish settlements in the Hasmonean period.
I watched the original video two days ago. Since I discovered this TH-cam channel only recently, I haven't left any comments until now. Thanks you for following up with this Q & A session. All the questions raised by the first video in my mind were answers in this video.
Thank you very much for making this Q&A video that I found very interesting. . . . My question wasn't taken up but a very similar one, about Samaritans adopting the Torah but in their slightly different form. That Torah was enforced on the Samaritans by the Hasmoneans is, ofc, a possibility. But it strikes me as strange the Samaritans would adopt the religious text by a conqueror who destroyed their temple. More likely seems to me an early cooperation with Jerusalem against Antiochus, using the Torah already in different form, but a later fallout with John Hyrcanus over something. . . . @3:33 books of Macabees says Antiochus IV forbidding circumcision, sabbath, kosher food caused revolt, but actual causes might have been different - do we know more about Antiochus and what he did to other tempels in his kingdom? To Mt. Gerizim temple? Did he rob them of their money, or did he interfere in their cult? IIRC Egyptians practiced circumcision widely, too, and while they were outside of Antiochus' reach the Greeks must have known about it and probably ridiculed but tolerated it.
2 Kings 17:27 - "Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land."
@fredgillespie5855 - the Torah is much younger than the Assyrian occupation of the northern kingdom of Israel: the scholarly consensus places the priestly source in the Persian period, after the Babylonian exile. That the Samaritans accepted the Torah shows a strong relationship diring the Persian period between Samaritans and the temple in Jerusalem where the same Torah was accepted, with the single difference of where the holy place should be: Mount Gerizim vs Jerusalem.
@@Achill101 - My mistake. I was actually referring to the Tanakh, the relevant version being known today as the Samaritan Pentateuch which in theory can be traced back to the Assyrian exile of Israel.
@@fredgillespie5855 - Torah and Pentateuch are the same and are used interchangeably, with "Torah" putting more weight on the religious observance of the laws within it. The Pentateuch is the first part of the Jewish bible and is the same as the Samaritan Pentateuch, except at a few places. The most prominent difference is the location that Yaweh has determined as the one true temple for sacrifices: in Jerusalem according to Jews, on Mt. Gerizim according to Samaritans. . . . The Pentateuch, also the Samaritan Pentateuch, didn't exist before the Persian period, 530BC-333BC (but sources for the Pentateuch existed). The Samaritan people are older and probably mostly descendents of those residents of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who didn't flee to Judah nor were deported to Mesopotamia by the Assyrians. The Jewish people didn't like Samaritans after 100BC and emphasized instead those ancestors that the Assyrians settled in the Northern Kingdom after 722BC.
@@Achill101 - The Samaritans were not descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Those Israelites were gone, the land was emptied and the former inhabitants were replaced, the Bible is quite clear on this - 2 Kings 17:24 "And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof." This chapter continues and tells how the King of Assyria sent an Israelite priest to these people to teach them God's laws. Although these Samaritans continued secretly with their own religion they also worshipped the God of Israel. In this we have a record of the Samaritans becoming acquainted with the Torah or Pentateuch and since the Samaritan version apparently has more in common with the Alexandrian LXX than with the "edited" Masoretic text it is most likely that the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch is around 700 BC.
Thank you. 1) when you speak of Judeans, do you mean only residents of Judea or those practicing some form of 'Judaism' in the Galil, Golan (Gamla) also. 2) to what extent did the Babylon exile and return inform the emergence of mass practice of Judaism (eg, evolution of the synagogue)?
The question then is "Then came there unto him a company of Assideans who were mighty men of Israel, even all such as were voluntarily devoted unto the law.' (Macc 1 2:45).....who were they and what was the belief........
That's already discussed in the Q&A. Assideans = Hasidim. The short answer is, we don't know, but they can be conjectured to have been pietists who kept the Torah.
The trend for the founders of religions to backdate their myths of origins seems to be universal. (See Islam and Mormonism and now Judaism) Is there any reason why Christianity should be treated any differently? When we consider Christianity we should find the same principle at work. Hence we are forced to conclude that the writers of the gospels most probably imagined that the religion was founded years before it actually was...
I don't think that's true for Islam. Is there some consensus for Muhammed being much later than thought? And like with Christianity, the range would at most be a few decades, since we've got hard evidence of the existence of both faiths not that long after the founders and some time would have needed to pass for expansion. Very different from Judaism where the texts date to at least centuries after the stories they relate.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Successful religions bolt from the starting blocks. They don't linger. They don't require decades "for expansion." See Mormonism and other modern religions. They come with a ready made history.
@paulgeorge1144 - modern religions are different in so far as printing presses exist: once printed, the message can spread quickly and widely. In the ancient world, spread was limited to manuscripts being written and copied. Yes, even that process can be scaled up, but then you already assume a large organized religion in place, like when the first caliphs spread one authoritative copy of the Quran and destroyed all other copies.
As we strip away divinity from all religions (which is inevitable), I wonder where humanity and religion will be 100 years from now. What will be our concepts of "religion?" Even now, secular Jews and secular Christians embrace their religions but from a moral teaching standpoint.
@@KEDEMChannel What are the implications of that? If the earliest Jerusalem Temple was not necessarily Hebrew/Jewish (not saying it wasn't) but the synagogues are good indications of Jewishness, and if the synagogues of Alexandria precede those in Judea, isn't that (Alexandria) a good time-mark for the emergence of Judiasm?
I am curious to understand how Torah practices arose in Africa? Is there any evidence of it being practiced there prior to being practiced in Middle East? Was it possible because of the many diasporas we read in the Bible?
A community of Judean mercenaries and their families on Elephantine, is documented starting in the 7th century BCE. The mercenaries guarded the frontier between Egypt and Nubia to the south. Following the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the 6th century BCE, some Judean refugees traveled south and settled on Elephantine.
This is interesting but I think it's fishy. The passage that immediately came into my head was the one from Jeremiah 17 where the prophet excoriates those who bring in heavy burdens through the gates on the Sabbath, citing Torah prohibitions mentioned in Leviticus 23 and Exodus 31. While this is somewhat problematic insofar as much of the major prophets describe what the people AREN'T doing and AREN'T obeying, lamenting and documenting an array of widespread syncretism from the worship of the Nehushtan (brass serpent) in the temple until it was destroyed by Hezekiah, to the pillar set up there to the goddess Inanu, "the queen of heaven," upon which Ezekiel unleashes particular fury, the Jeremiah passage to me also connotes the presence of an expectation of widespread familiarity with and cognizance of basic Torah regulations. There is just so much internal reference to the body of Levitical law by the prophets as they plead with the people and lament the backsliding that one only imagines a condition in which oral or Templar recitation or indoctrination must have somehow existed either before or weakly during the pre-captivity Judah and even before the NeoAssyrian sack of the northern kingdom. Moreover, Judaism is not limited to Torah but rather consists of the body of ethics and spiritual philosophy most vitally and beautifully expressed though all of the Tanakh but especially in the prophets. It's that singular humanist voice that sounds like a clarion through the "might makes right" ethos of so much of the ancient world that in so many adapted forms, even in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, has inspired so many and whose ethical vision (albeit diluted through cheap, pantomime Disney-McDonald's adaptations of it in Christianity and, perhaps with even less grace, in Islam) swept away, at least at the level of sensibilities, all of mighty Rome. I think Judaism is much broader and deeper than just Torah legalism, though that is certainly part of its richness.
The learned professor's statement at 31:30 that based on the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish masses did not observe the laws of the Torah for a thousand years after Sinai, is contradicted at the end of Joshua. Shortly before his death, "Joshua said to all the people, 'Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the Lord which He spoke to us; it shall be a witness against you, lest you deny your God.' " It goes on to state right after his death and burial: "And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, and who had known all the works of the Lord, that He had done for Israel." If Joshua made a monument attesting that they they will uphold "all the words of the Lord which He spoke to us," and the Bible then says that they indeed served the Lord throughout his rule and the period thereafter, it clearly means they obeyed the laws of the Torah. There are other references re. King David's reign and other periods as well, but certainly the period of Joshua alone is an extended period. In addition, your title is highly misleading. Regardless of how the professor defines Judaism, the title as stated would widely be understood to mean the beginning of the Jewish faith. Adding the word "Observant" before "Judaism" would make it far more accurate.
@KEDEMChannel ...So, the agreement was that recognisable Judaism as a mass cult and as we'd define it for the last two millennia, ie. ritual bathing, keeping of shabbat and kashrut (dietary laws) dates from the Hasmoneans, right? I think I remember Finkelstein talking of the various narratives and practices of the Torah dating back to the 8th and 6th centuries BCE, if not before. Am I right about that, and if so does that not negate part of the argument which Adler seems to be making?
It is a shame that I did not ask questions to prof. Adler in the comments after the first interview. I have read his book and generally agree with his conclusion, with a few exceptions. First, his book posits that the mass observance of Judaism dates back to the Hasmonean period. Profesor Adler's book would be better titled "The Origin of Mass Judaism" then. It would pacify some readers. The author used the sort of "clickbait" technique while naming a book. The book does not falsify the possibility that certain Torah laws were observed in some form, for example, among members of a priestly caste prior to the Hasmonean period. The development of Judaism in Khazaria shows that it is quite possible for the ruling elites to be converted to Judaism and fully observed its rites, while the masses could choose any religion they wanted. It is more logical to admit that if you have the Torah, the temple, and the elite, then ruling strata of society could follow some Torah rulings rather than accept some other non-Torah rites. For the latter, there should be an alternative artifact: physical or textual. So far, there are none. I think the further research on the pre-Hasmonean period (announced by prof. Adler in the current interview) will shed a light on the magnitude of the Torah laws observance among elites and others. Second, I think the use of chalk ware has been slightly misunderstood. According to prof. Adler, the Judeans realized that chalk fell out of the list of materials subjected to contamination, thus exploiting a loophole in the law. Afterwards, they began to produce dishes from a soft stone. I think the use of chalk ware was indeed related to the laws of ritual purity, but with a twist. We agree that sanitary and hygienic practices are intertwined with ritual cleanliness, meaning that one affects the other. There is no better way to enforce the rules of hygiene than to make it a ritual. Our parents taught us to wash our hands as a ritual. I think the Judeans understood that stone and ceramic utensils could be equally contaminated, since both are solid, fragile, and porous materials. If contaminated, ceramics must be discarded, however ceramics are expensive compared to the chalk ware. They used chalk ware as an alternative to ceramics. The choice was purely economic: cheapness and promotion of local business. In everyday use, in the event of contamination, it makes economic sense to get rid of cheap tableware and save the pottery for more formal occasions. You can think of chalk dishes as the disposable paper/plastic utensils of today. Overall, prof. Adler's book is an excellent piece of scholarship. Allen Gindler
Titles of articles in magazines or newspapers are normally picked by the editors to create attention (clickbait). I don't know who chose the title for Adler's book, but I wouldn't be surprised if the publisher did who wants attention and higher sales. And while the title is clickbait, it's not false, just in need of an explanation.
A famous book relating to Judaism is entitled: “Moses and Monotheism”. If Judaism means the first religion that thought of God as uniquely “One” would that change when Judaism began historically?
Judaism did not become monotheistic until the Persian period at the earliest. Judaism was beaten to monotheism by Akhenaten and by Persian Zoroastrianism. Josiah might have been imitating Akhenaten in trying to give himself a monoply on religion (the real reason that kings invent monotheism). If anything Jewish monotheism is arguably a result of Platonic monotheism in the Hellenistic period. Certainly in the archaeology, the people of Israel were polytheistic until at least the Babylonian exile. Russel Gmrkin's work is revelatory in showing Platonic influence on the Pentateuch.
@@Ken_Scaletta - the oldest book of the bible that clearly shows monotheism is probably Isaiah, in its Deutero-Isaiah part. Why do you think that part is NOT from Babylon, which is often assumed, but from the Persian or Hellenistic period?
@@Achill101 The oldest part of Isais is the first part. Deutero is second and trio third. Isaiah was written in three stages. Where does it "clearly show monotheism?"
Who is "annihilating" which texts? The papyri of Elephantine don't speak about Passover, Mose, or Torah: therefore, the assumption is that they didn't know them when discussing the feast of unleavened bread. The assumption is falsifiable: if another papyri of that time in Egypt or Israel appears WITH references to Passover, Moses, or Torah, then we will discard the first assumption. But so far, no further papyri or other evidence has appeared.
@@Achill101 A fair number of archaeological finds mention the name JHWH. Could that have anything to do with 'Judaism?' Or is it better to speak of 'the religion of Israel?'
@@peterk.6930 - you seem to take me and my views for someone else. I do consider the people of the Elephantine temple Jews, but I would be also Ok with calling them followers of the religion of contemporary Israel. They were in exchange with Samaria and the temple in Jerusalem, close enough to ask for money to rebuild their temple. They seem to be the average temple community in the diaspora (outside Babylon) that sacrificed animals and didn't know the Torah.
@@Achill101 I didn't mean Elephantine, there are quite a few records (before 2nd century BCE) that mention YHWH . You could also see serving a named God as a 'practice.'
What does Singer claim? A debate might be less fruitful if the two get their evidence from different fields, Adler from archeology and Singer from the bible text.
I take it that the question relates to a formalisation of Judaic ideas. I have come across the spread being linked to the institution of synagogues as centres of learning and teaching. Remember most people, even rulers, were illiterate so oral teaching would be the only method spreading the teachings.
Priests in temples eg Greeks, Egyptians and Romans seem to have performed their rites secretly in the holy of holies. The Roman Catholic church took this further until Vatican ll in the 1960s by performing religious services in Latin rather than vernacular languages. So this would serve to keep the sect and its rites contained within an elite group. So temples do not equate necessarily to widespread observance or knowledge if a religion. How many villages had a temple????
That isn't what they're saying. They're saying there was a temple, there were priests, and the priests were running a temple cult, but there is no evidence that temple cult was practicing "Judaism".
@@andrewsuryali8540 yes I understand I really appreciate the minimal approach of Adler and Finkelstein. So there was a people, with a temple and priests who worshipped strange gods. The question that comes to mind then is: does Judaism have anything to do with worshipping YHWH? Several archaeological records seem to confirm that ...
Before rabbinic Judaism there was a Judaic people, I don't think that's actually controversial. We acknowledge Jews today who don't observe the laws of the Torah, yet they are still Jews. Being a jew has never solely been about your religious observance.
IIRC it's the other way around. Adler actually hangs out with the more primitivist believers in Judaism who try to find the oldest form of Judaic worship. Yes, this means they do have a beef with Rabbinic Judaism, but that's because they've adopted an attitude like primitivist American Protestants who think the Catholic Church is in error. To them Rabbinic Judaism introduced erroneous innovations, and they seek to find the older, "correct" form of Judaism.
@@KEDEMChannel I know that is why I subscribed, and I really liked the talk on the splitting of the ways. It was refreshing to hear others discuss that topic in a truly academic and respectful manner. This one however, disappointed me. Shalom
@@andrewsuryali8540 That's unfortunate, Rabbinic Judaism has been a great help to preserving Torah for the masses and a counterbalance in the world of Faith and Spirituality. Very pragmatic and grounded while simultaneously giving away to deep esoteric concepts. Well I don't want to go on about it to a people who don't share my same sentiments. Shalom
How curious. I don’t see evidence in these interviews of that at all. As a matter of fact, his premise is that widespread, mass Jewish practice is dependent on having synagogs and enough people reading and discussing the Torah. That doesn’t sound like a beef against rabbinic Judaism. He sounds very forthcoming here: as a historian, he tries to trace to when there’s the earliest evidence of Judaism, as defined by the practice of the mitzvot of the Torah. Maybe you have evidence outside the two interviews he did for Kedem for that assertion?
@@KEDEMChannel Judaism began with the Hebraic ancestors and their experiences with God, not with widespread observance among the Israelites. You're putting artificial limitations on the word "Judaism" to suit your needs. The common use and signification of the word is widely known in the public and of course it doesn't correspond with yours. Very dishonest.
The only starting point adequate to answer this question is to take the Bible as a credible historic document. If you do not believe that the one true God and creator called a Babylonian named Abram out of the land of Ur and his fathers house and established a covenant between God and this man then what basis can one have to embrace something called Judaism? If the bible was just a collection of made up stories by men living in Babylon during the 6th and 5 th centuries BC as some scholars both Jewish and non Jewish contend then there is no earthly reason to be Judaic you might say. No Abraham no Judaism it is that simple. Also when one talks of Judaism proper are we talking Rabbinic Judaism or actual biblical Judaism? Before the advent of the Rabbinic age what did the original Israelites believe and practice? After the childen of Israel settled in the land it was the written torah, the laws governing the ancient people that were to be followed to the letter and nothing else. This is the law David extols in Psalm 119 and the same law that Joshua was to meditate upon day and night. The same law that was to be given to any future and potential King. Joshua 1:8; Deuteronomy 17:17. The Rabbis have a lot of esplaining to do on this subject and the so called oral tradition. 😊 The Neviim never mention any oral laws or torah when God visits His ancient covenant people in judgment for their sin and disobedience. The people were driven out of the land specifically for disobedience. Such disobedience can only be rightly measured and judged by the Book of the Law Moses put together by the command of God. For example there is no reason not to address Elohim by His designated covenant name YHWH Yahweh. Or whatever way one chooses to pronounce it. The Torah is both law and history going back to creation and all of Elohims dealings with specifically chosen individuals. Adam Cain Enoch Noah and Job none of whom are Abraham's children. In fact Adam is the Father of the whole human race and we are all related to each other through him and Eve. The ten commandments are relative and relevant for all of humanity not just Jews. Cain was a murderer and can be condemned because he violated that particular moral law. Adam simply disobeyed the coomand not to eat of a particular tree in the garden and brought death upon himself and all his posterity. Death is not natural and a part of some inexplicable defect in nature. It came as a result of Adams transgression. This the Torah tells all of us. The holy scriptures must be regarded as absolutely true if there is to be a valid system of belief and morals for Jew or Gentile.
Not really, the title is appropriate. Please check the previous video, where the author points out to the definition of 'Judaism' as it is used in this rigorously academic work.
@@stevewarren3051 I see your point as well. Arguably, yes, my Judaism and yours may not be identically defined, but when you are writing a thesis, a clear definition from which to launch your research needs to be impeccably defined, and the author's choice rests on the grounds of (possibly widespread) praxis, and when evidence of it becomes apparent. Bear in mind that this is purely academic and it doesn't venture in the field of either faith or theology. Even if only academic, the work is enriching in and of itself. You can look at it as a thought experiment if you wish.
@@felipepantin It's not as if the Torah, as written by Moses, was totally ignored until the 2nd century BC and was therefore incomplete during that time. But, to be fair, Judaism in the current era contains the oral tradition and the Midrash. Something you could call new or updated Judiaism.
@@stevewarren3051 I agree with you, it definitely didn't go totally unnoticed or ignored between the time when the Pentateuch started being put down in writing and the time when the Judean cult started looking like something that could be recognized as the Judaism we know today (something that the author cares to point out). You also point out to a very good question: when and how the biblical text started to be written down. A subject for another episode :)
![When did Judaism begin? Prof. Yonatan Adler - The Origins of Judaism [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5U1TN-i0x7g/mqdefault.jpg)
![When did Judaism begin? Prof. Yonatan Adler - The Origins of Judaism [4K]](/img/tr.png)
A lot of Adler's available lectures on yt are repetitive or introductory, so I was glad to find this video that is so open and informative.
Glad it was helpful!
Link to the original episode:
th-cam.com/video/5U1TN-i0x7g/w-d-xo.html
When did Judaism really begin?
A link to purchase Prof. Adler’s new book The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal
(affiliated):
Kindle
amzn.to/3jYiiEG
Hardcover
amzn.to/3Ixfk41
Again, thank you for this post.
The whole discussion about the emergence of the Abramistic religions makes much more sense from an historical point of view.
It´s not only about Judaism but much more for it´s younger siblings.
Especially the adoption of Judaism in other regions (Yemen and probably the Khazars) and the rise of the early Islam makes sense from this point of view.
Thank you 🙏
Thanks for both these conversations with Professor Adler. I look forward to his next book as the current book does raise the question: how did this form of Judaism emerge/transition from the post-exilic ancient Israelite (ancient Judean) religion? Were those Hasidim he mentioned proto-rabbinic?
The title should be: "When did widespread Judaic Observance Begin?"
I get what you’re saying, but the title as is, is thought provoking and draws people in.
@@anthonyproffitt5341
"Click-bait" ?
Does Judaism really exist if it isn't widespread among everyday average people?
@@TheEvolver311
Yes
BTW Millions of people practice Judaism today.
I am surprised that Ezra’s reading of the Torah to the people (Nehemiah 8) is not given more space. I would assume that that was an important event in the path to general observation, even though some of the customs (e.g. mikveh bath) were introduced later.
Adler focus is on archeological evidences. Obviously, we have no such evidence for Ezra's reading
@Kedem Inane argument, so we don’t have evidence for Troy right?We can’t know anything about the ancient world according to your minimalist nonsense.
Oral tradition is evidence. Archeology is not evidence of anything lmao Comparative linguistics is a much less biased, propagandized, and far more academic field than archeology. We can’t trust a field incapable of identifying their own Osracons, with figures like Zahi Hawass that make repairs covering up archeological data. Sorry not sorry. Time to dismantle your kayfabe.
Thank you for this.
Great interview. One archaeological discovery that pushes back at the observance of the Sabbath commandment before the Hasmonean period would be the Mesad Hashavyahu Ostracon, probably from the reign of Josiah (late 7th century BCE.). This discovery itself would not negate his thesis that mainstream Judasiam did not exist en masse till the later era, but it does show that some, even a farmer on the outskirts of Josiah's kingdom, was observing the Sabbath almost 500 years earlier.
That reading of the osctracon is not accepted by all scholars.
@@stevenv6463- requiring ALL scholars to accept a reading would be asking too much - what is the tenor of scholars regarding this find?
@@Achill101 That it is reading a lot into a vague text that is simply saying the equivalent of bring bread on Saturday. It doesn't prove they were observing the sabbath anymore than me asking my wife to make bread for Saturday one random day. The problem is that would be the sole archeological evidence for Sabbath observance for centuries.
@@stevenv6463 ‐ thanks
This is a highly tendentious reading of an ostracon not generally acceted and completely contradicted by the archaeology.
As far as the discussion about pigs and goats go, it's one thing if people over a large region don't commonly eat one or the other, but if one relatively small region doesn't show signs of consuming pork (or goat meat), while their neighbors do, that's more of a sign that they're deliberately avoiding it for one reason or another.
Whether or not the full Torah prohibition on pork existed at an early date, it's meaningful if a cultural practice of not eating pork existed in ancient Isreal and Judah that was distinct from other cultures around them.
And I believe there's at least some evidence of that, dating back to the earliest days.
In the case of pork, I don't know why Adler doesn't talk about this since it's common knowledge, but pork bones in Israeli archaeological sites have been tested for DNA. In Bronze Age sites that preserve pork bones, these were mostly boar from the region. In Iron Age sites, the bones come from domesticated Aegean breeds. In modern Levantine boar populations, the boars are genetic descendants of the Aegean pigs. So a more obvious answer to why pork is easier to find in Philistine sites is because they brought the animals there from across the sea. The indigenous locals probably didn't eat pork because they originally didn't have easy access to them (it takes some effort to bring down wild boar, which isn't that common in deserts anyway), then because they developed their taboos in direct response to competition against the Philistines.
@@andrewsuryali8540 so the whole (ancient) world eating pork,
just a small strip in Judea the pork is currently out of of stock,
how funny is that.
I m sorry I don t find your proposal is any more obvious at all.
@@peterk.6930 Oh, you seem to be missing the context here. Pig domestication in the Middle East started falling off around 2000 BCE and fell off precipitously around 1200 BCE. Pork was not eaten or was only eaten in very small amounts across the entire Fertile Crescent starting from 1000 BCE. It wasn't just in the Levant; Babylonians suddenly stopped eating pork too. People suddenly stopped keeping domesticated pigs. Eating pork only returned in the Mesopotamian region around the time of the rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Their pigs were imported from what is today Anatolia. Basically, these people stopped having domesticated pigs around the time of the Bronze Age Collapse and only regained domesticated pigs much later from outside sources. The only cultures that consistently kept domesticated pigs in the region were the Egyptians and the Mediterranean settlers (the Philistines and other "Sea People"). The situation you're describing, with only a sliver of the Levant not eating pork, only happened later around the 8th century BCE, by which time Israel's existence as a kingdom and the Israelite religion itself had been attested to for over a century. Even then, it wasn't exclusive yet. All Israelite dynasties until the fall of Samaria ruled over a territory where some settlements still ate some pork. In Judah it's even more obvious as the Philistine cities there persisted in their pork-eating ways until they were destroyed in the 7th century.
@@andrewsuryali8540 But that's kind of the point, right? If by the 8th century we can document pork being a cultural distinction between Israelite groups and others in the region, that's evidence.
Whether it was already a cultic taboo or simply a cultural practice is harder to know from archaeological evidence, but by that point it's clearly not just "pigs weren't available".
@@jeffmacdonald9863 In the 8th century, Philistine cities show evidence of domesticated pigs and pork consumption, but surrounding villages don't. In Israel and Judah, there are no signs of pig domestication outside of settlements in the Jordan marshes and near forests, but there are signs of pork consumption in small amounts in some settlements. This suggests that Philistines, Israelites and Judahites would eat pork if it was made available but mostly didn't raise pigs themselves. Combining the evidence, it looks like for some reason the art of raising domesticated pigs, or the availability of domesticated pigs to begin with, was somehow limited to the Philistine cities in this era. It could also be economic, as with the goat example. By the 8th century Israelites and Judahites, like all other native Levantines, had spent the past two centuries not eating pigs, so there would have been no incentive for their farmers to raise pigs. There might have been no market for pork just because it was viewed as alien by the locals, despite their ancestors eating pork originally. Philistines were eating pork all the way through this period, so they always had a market and an incentive to raise pigs. In any case, what the evidence shows is that availability was more likely the driving factor behind the lack of pork consumption.
What is more interesting is that most people living in this era who weren't part of the elites would have had a chance to eat meat only after sacrifices during festivals. The pork consumption in Philistine cities can be explained by the elites living there, who would have had access to meat all year round, but when an Israelite village is found with evidence of pork consumption, this means their local priest must have sacrificed a pig, which suggests that in this period the taboo was either non-existent or not enforced universally.
The taboo probably came later, possibly during the short rise of Judah after the destruction of Israel by the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the 7th century. All the Philistine cities were also destroyed in the same great war and suddenly pork consumption dropped precipitously in the Levant. No pig farmers, no pork. This was probably also when the local boar population started getting replaced by Aegean pigs, let loose from their destroyed cities. It was probably during this period that the people of Judah (who also included refugees from fallen Israel) started looking around and recognizing that not eating pork was one of the things that separated them from encroaching neighbors. In any case, pork consumption remained low in the region through the destruction of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonian Empire and subsequent Persian period. There was an uptick during the Hellenistic era with the arrival of colonists from Greece, then we had the clear distinction of porkless Jewish settlements in the Hasmonean period.
I watched the original video two days ago. Since I discovered this TH-cam channel only recently, I haven't left any comments until now.
Thanks you for following up with this Q & A session. All the questions raised by the first video in my mind were answers in this video.
Welcome to KEDEM 👍👌
Thank you very much for making this Q&A video that I found very interesting.
. . . My question wasn't taken up but a very similar one, about Samaritans adopting the Torah but in their slightly different form. That Torah was enforced on the Samaritans by the Hasmoneans is, ofc, a possibility. But it strikes me as strange the Samaritans would adopt the religious text by a conqueror who destroyed their temple. More likely seems to me an early cooperation with Jerusalem against Antiochus, using the Torah already in different form, but a later fallout with John Hyrcanus over something.
. . . @3:33 books of Macabees says Antiochus IV forbidding circumcision, sabbath, kosher food caused revolt, but actual causes might have been different - do we know more about Antiochus and what he did to other tempels in his kingdom? To Mt. Gerizim temple? Did he rob them of their money, or did he interfere in their cult?
IIRC Egyptians practiced circumcision widely, too, and while they were outside of Antiochus' reach the Greeks must have known about it and probably ridiculed but tolerated it.
2 Kings 17:27 - "Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land."
@fredgillespie5855 - the Torah is much younger than the Assyrian occupation of the northern kingdom of Israel: the scholarly consensus places the priestly source in the Persian period, after the Babylonian exile. That the Samaritans accepted the Torah shows a strong relationship diring the Persian period between Samaritans and the temple in Jerusalem where the same Torah was accepted, with the single difference of where the holy place should be: Mount Gerizim vs Jerusalem.
@@Achill101 - My mistake. I was actually referring to the Tanakh, the relevant version being known today as the Samaritan Pentateuch which in theory can be traced back to the Assyrian exile of Israel.
@@fredgillespie5855 - Torah and Pentateuch are the same and are used interchangeably, with "Torah" putting more weight on the religious observance of the laws within it. The Pentateuch is the first part of the Jewish bible and is the same as the Samaritan Pentateuch, except at a few places. The most prominent difference is the location that Yaweh has determined as the one true temple for sacrifices: in Jerusalem according to Jews, on Mt. Gerizim according to Samaritans.
. . . The Pentateuch, also the Samaritan Pentateuch, didn't exist before the Persian period, 530BC-333BC (but sources for the Pentateuch existed). The Samaritan people are older and probably mostly descendents of those residents of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who didn't flee to Judah nor were deported to Mesopotamia by the Assyrians. The Jewish people didn't like Samaritans after 100BC and emphasized instead those ancestors that the Assyrians settled in the Northern Kingdom after 722BC.
@@Achill101 - The Samaritans were not descendants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Those Israelites were gone, the land was emptied and the former inhabitants were replaced, the Bible is quite clear on this - 2 Kings 17:24
"And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof."
This chapter continues and tells how the King of Assyria sent an Israelite priest to these people to teach them God's laws. Although these Samaritans continued secretly with their own religion they also worshipped the God of Israel. In this we have a record of the Samaritans becoming acquainted with the Torah or Pentateuch and since the Samaritan version apparently has more in common with the Alexandrian LXX than with the "edited" Masoretic text it is most likely that the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch is around 700 BC.
I'm looking forward to the next book mentioned here: 38:11
Finally a scholar that thinks rationally and not wearing a kippa !!
정말 감사합니다 많이 배웠습니다 차기작 기대됩니다😊
Thank you. 1) when you speak of Judeans, do you mean only residents of Judea or those practicing some form of 'Judaism' in the Galil, Golan (Gamla) also. 2) to what extent did the Babylon exile and return inform the emergence of mass practice of Judaism (eg, evolution of the synagogue)?
During the Temple period of Jewish worship, was there any archeological evidence of a priestess class involved in Jewish worship?
love the content but the interviewer's volume is too low.
The question then is "Then came there unto him a company of Assideans who were mighty men of Israel, even all such as were voluntarily devoted unto the law.' (Macc 1 2:45).....who were they and what was the belief........
That's already discussed in the Q&A. Assideans = Hasidim. The short answer is, we don't know, but they can be conjectured to have been pietists who kept the Torah.
The trend for the founders of religions to backdate their myths of origins seems to be universal. (See Islam and Mormonism and now Judaism) Is there any reason why Christianity should be treated any differently? When we consider Christianity we should find the same principle at work. Hence we are forced to conclude that the writers of the gospels most probably imagined that the religion was founded years before it actually was...
I don't think that's true for Islam. Is there some consensus for Muhammed being much later than thought?
And like with Christianity, the range would at most be a few decades, since we've got hard evidence of the existence of both faiths not that long after the founders and some time would have needed to pass for expansion. Very different from Judaism where the texts date to at least centuries after the stories they relate.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Successful religions bolt from the starting blocks. They don't linger. They don't require decades "for expansion." See Mormonism and other modern religions. They come with a ready made history.
@paulgeorge1144 - modern religions are different in so far as printing presses exist: once printed, the message can spread quickly and widely. In the ancient world, spread was limited to manuscripts being written and copied. Yes, even that process can be scaled up, but then you already assume a large organized religion in place, like when the first caliphs spread one authoritative copy of the Quran and destroyed all other copies.
I have a question: when can we expect the price of your book to come down 😩
As we strip away divinity from all religions (which is inevitable), I wonder where humanity and religion will be 100 years from now. What will be our concepts of "religion?"
Even now, secular Jews and secular Christians embrace their religions but from a moral teaching standpoint.
Are the oldest synagogue-houses found in Alexandria older than the oldest synagogue-houses in Judea?
Probably yes
@@KEDEMChannel What are the implications of that? If the earliest Jerusalem Temple was not necessarily Hebrew/Jewish (not saying it wasn't) but the synagogues are good indications of Jewishness, and if the synagogues of Alexandria precede those in Judea, isn't that (Alexandria) a good time-mark for the emergence of Judiasm?
I am curious to understand how Torah practices arose in Africa? Is there any evidence of it being practiced there prior to being practiced in Middle East? Was it possible because of the many diasporas we read in the Bible?
A community of Judean mercenaries and their families on Elephantine, is documented starting in the 7th century BCE. The mercenaries guarded the frontier between Egypt and Nubia to the south. Following the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in the 6th century BCE, some Judean refugees traveled south and settled on Elephantine.
This is interesting but I think it's fishy. The passage that immediately came into my head was the one from Jeremiah 17 where the prophet excoriates those who bring in heavy burdens through the gates on the Sabbath, citing Torah prohibitions mentioned in Leviticus 23 and Exodus 31. While this is somewhat problematic insofar as much of the major prophets describe what the people AREN'T doing and AREN'T obeying, lamenting and documenting an array of widespread syncretism from the worship of the Nehushtan (brass serpent) in the temple until it was destroyed by Hezekiah, to the pillar set up there to the goddess Inanu, "the queen of heaven," upon which Ezekiel unleashes particular fury, the Jeremiah passage to me also connotes the presence of an expectation of widespread familiarity with and cognizance of basic Torah regulations. There is just so much internal reference to the body of Levitical law by the prophets as they plead with the people and lament the backsliding that one only imagines a condition in which oral or Templar recitation or indoctrination must have somehow existed either before or weakly during the pre-captivity Judah and even before the NeoAssyrian sack of the northern kingdom. Moreover, Judaism is not limited to Torah but rather consists of the body of ethics and spiritual philosophy most vitally and beautifully expressed though all of the Tanakh but especially in the prophets. It's that singular humanist voice that sounds like a clarion through the "might makes right" ethos of so much of the ancient world that in so many adapted forms, even in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, has inspired so many and whose ethical vision (albeit diluted through cheap, pantomime Disney-McDonald's adaptations of it in Christianity and, perhaps with even less grace, in Islam) swept away, at least at the level of sensibilities, all of mighty Rome. I think Judaism is much broader and deeper than just Torah legalism, though that is certainly part of its richness.
The learned professor's statement at 31:30 that based on the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish masses did not observe the laws of the Torah for a thousand years after Sinai, is contradicted at the end of Joshua. Shortly before his death, "Joshua said to all the people, 'Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the Lord which He spoke to us; it shall be a witness against you, lest you deny your God.' " It goes on to state right after his death and burial: "And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, and who had known all the works of the Lord, that He had done for Israel." If Joshua made a monument attesting that they they will uphold "all the words of the Lord which He spoke to us," and the Bible then says that they indeed served the Lord throughout his rule and the period thereafter, it clearly means they obeyed the laws of the Torah. There are other references re. King David's reign and other periods as well, but certainly the period of Joshua alone is an extended period.
In addition, your title is highly misleading. Regardless of how the professor defines Judaism, the title as stated would widely be understood to mean the beginning of the Jewish faith. Adding the word "Observant" before "Judaism" would make it far more accurate.
Nice to know he reads the comments... So here ya go!
You're a very nice looking young man, so hurry up and get married to make your mother happy! 👍
What does Israel Finkelstein think of this?
I actually asked him once and he is principally in agreement.
@@KEDEMChannel Thanks! Is that in one of your (fantastic) videos? Would you be able to give me a link for that?
@KEDEMChannel ...So, the agreement was that recognisable Judaism as a mass cult and as we'd define it for the last two millennia, ie. ritual bathing, keeping of shabbat and kashrut (dietary laws) dates from the Hasmoneans, right?
I think I remember Finkelstein talking of the various narratives and practices of the Torah dating back to the 8th and 6th centuries BCE, if not before. Am I right about that, and if so does that not negate part of the argument which Adler seems to be making?
It is a shame that I did not ask questions to prof. Adler in the comments after the first interview. I have read his book and generally agree with his conclusion, with a few exceptions.
First, his book posits that the mass observance of Judaism dates back to the Hasmonean period. Profesor Adler's book would be better titled "The Origin of Mass Judaism" then. It would pacify some readers. The author used the sort of "clickbait" technique while naming a book. The book does not falsify the possibility that certain Torah laws were observed in some form, for example, among members of a priestly caste prior to the Hasmonean period. The development of Judaism in Khazaria shows that it is quite possible for the ruling elites to be converted to Judaism and fully observed its rites, while the masses could choose any religion they wanted. It is more logical to admit that if you have the Torah, the temple, and the elite, then ruling strata of society could follow some Torah rulings rather than accept some other non-Torah rites. For the latter, there should be an alternative artifact: physical or textual. So far, there are none. I think the further research on the pre-Hasmonean period (announced by prof. Adler in the current interview) will shed a light on the magnitude of the Torah laws observance among elites and others.
Second, I think the use of chalk ware has been slightly misunderstood. According to prof. Adler, the Judeans realized that chalk fell out of the list of materials subjected to contamination, thus exploiting a loophole in the law. Afterwards, they began to produce dishes from a soft stone. I think the use of chalk ware was indeed related to the laws of ritual purity, but with a twist. We agree that sanitary and hygienic practices are intertwined with ritual cleanliness, meaning that one affects the other. There is no better way to enforce the rules of hygiene than to make it a ritual. Our parents taught us to wash our hands as a ritual. I think the Judeans understood that stone and ceramic utensils could be equally contaminated, since both are solid, fragile, and porous materials.
If contaminated, ceramics must be discarded, however ceramics are expensive compared to the chalk ware. They used chalk ware as an alternative to ceramics. The choice was purely economic: cheapness and promotion of local business. In everyday use, in the event of contamination, it makes economic sense to get rid of cheap tableware and save the pottery for more formal occasions. You can think of chalk dishes as the disposable paper/plastic utensils of today.
Overall, prof. Adler's book is an excellent piece of scholarship.
Allen Gindler
Titles of articles in magazines or newspapers are normally picked by the editors to create attention (clickbait). I don't know who chose the title for Adler's book, but I wouldn't be surprised if the publisher did who wants attention and higher sales. And while the title is clickbait, it's not false, just in need of an explanation.
It starts with the traditions of the elders about 150 bc
A famous book relating to Judaism is entitled: “Moses and Monotheism”. If Judaism means the first religion that thought of God as uniquely “One” would that change when Judaism began historically?
Jewish monotheism is quite late .
Judaism did not become monotheistic until the Persian period at the earliest. Judaism was beaten to monotheism by Akhenaten and by Persian Zoroastrianism. Josiah might have been imitating Akhenaten in trying to give himself a monoply on religion (the real reason that kings invent monotheism). If anything Jewish monotheism is arguably a result of Platonic monotheism in the Hellenistic period. Certainly in the archaeology, the people of Israel were polytheistic until at least the Babylonian exile. Russel Gmrkin's work is revelatory in showing Platonic influence on the Pentateuch.
@@Ken_Scaletta - the oldest book of the bible that clearly shows monotheism is probably Isaiah, in its Deutero-Isaiah part. Why do you think that part is NOT from Babylon, which is often assumed, but from the Persian or Hellenistic period?
@@Achill101 The oldest part of Isais is the first part. Deutero is second and trio third. Isaiah was written in three stages. Where does it "clearly show monotheism?"
@@Ken_Scaletta - in its second part, in Deutero-Isaiah. Do you need you chapter and verse?
25:48 What scietific principle lies in anihilating texts without the lightest proof of an falsificative assumption or an alternative ?
Who is "annihilating" which texts?
The papyri of Elephantine don't speak about Passover, Mose, or Torah: therefore, the assumption is that they didn't know them when discussing the feast of unleavened bread. The assumption is falsifiable: if another papyri of that time in Egypt or Israel appears WITH references to Passover, Moses, or Torah, then we will discard the first assumption. But so far, no further papyri or other evidence has appeared.
@@Achill101 A fair number of archaeological finds mention the name JHWH.
Could that have anything to do with 'Judaism?'
Or is it better to speak of 'the religion of Israel?'
@@peterk.6930 - you seem to take me and my views for someone else. I do consider the people of the Elephantine temple Jews, but I would be also Ok with calling them followers of the religion of contemporary Israel. They were in exchange with Samaria and the temple in Jerusalem, close enough to ask for money to rebuild their temple. They seem to be the average temple community in the diaspora (outside Babylon) that sacrificed animals and didn't know the Torah.
@@Achill101 I didn't mean Elephantine,
there are quite a few records (before 2nd century BCE) that mention YHWH .
You could also see serving a named God as a 'practice.'
The Levites were the high priests?
Yes.
Would love to see Adler & Tovia Singer spar n debate
What does Singer claim?
A debate might be less fruitful if the two get their evidence from different fields, Adler from archeology and Singer from the bible text.
So the Bible is about as reliable a historical record as the Book of Mormon, Rastafarian scriptures, or the Roman Aeneid.
It did not begin at mt Sinai
So it would seem....but again who were these Hassidim of which Macc 1 speaks ??
@@larrylangman3544 Nudniks
Of course it did. Stop denying root.
He refrains from citing dates
so there was a people, according to papyri, steles, pedestials etc. (and it has a temple!!) but there was no cult???
36:35 Nihilistics as science by wild provocation instead of challenge by facts and reason.
What is nihilistic about him looking for questions he hadn't thought about or facts he hadn't heard of?
so there was a people, according to papyri, steles, pedestials etc. (and it has a temple!!) but there was no cult???
it sounds weird
Cult was shared with other people of the region. Like todays big cults are shared by different peoples in different countries
I take it that the question relates to a formalisation of Judaic ideas. I have come across the spread being linked to the institution of synagogues as centres of learning and teaching. Remember most people, even rulers, were illiterate so oral teaching would be the only method spreading the teachings.
Priests in temples eg Greeks, Egyptians and Romans seem to have performed their rites secretly in the holy of holies. The Roman Catholic church took this further until Vatican ll in the 1960s by performing religious services in Latin rather than vernacular languages. So this would serve to keep the sect and its rites contained within an elite group. So temples do not equate necessarily to widespread observance or knowledge if a religion. How many villages had a temple????
That isn't what they're saying. They're saying there was a temple, there were priests, and the priests were running a temple cult, but there is no evidence that temple cult was practicing "Judaism".
@@andrewsuryali8540 yes I understand
I really appreciate the minimal approach of Adler and Finkelstein.
So there was a people, with a temple and priests who worshipped strange gods.
The question that comes to mind then is: does Judaism have anything to do with worshipping YHWH?
Several archaeological records seem to confirm that ...
Before rabbinic Judaism there was a Judaic people, I don't think that's actually controversial. We acknowledge Jews today who don't observe the laws of the Torah, yet they are still Jews. Being a jew has never solely been about your religious observance.
Sounds like the professor is out to prove G-D is just a myth or an axe to grind with Rabbinic Judaism and religion more broadly.
We provide an academic approach.
IIRC it's the other way around. Adler actually hangs out with the more primitivist believers in Judaism who try to find the oldest form of Judaic worship. Yes, this means they do have a beef with Rabbinic Judaism, but that's because they've adopted an attitude like primitivist American Protestants who think the Catholic Church is in error. To them Rabbinic Judaism introduced erroneous innovations, and they seek to find the older, "correct" form of Judaism.
@@KEDEMChannel I know that is why I subscribed, and I really liked the talk on the splitting of the ways. It was refreshing to hear others discuss that topic in a truly academic and respectful manner. This one however, disappointed me. Shalom
@@andrewsuryali8540 That's unfortunate, Rabbinic Judaism has been a great help to preserving Torah for the masses and a counterbalance in the world of Faith and Spirituality. Very pragmatic and grounded while simultaneously giving away to deep esoteric concepts. Well I don't want to go on about it to a people who don't share my same sentiments. Shalom
How curious. I don’t see evidence in these interviews of that at all. As a matter of fact, his premise is that widespread, mass Jewish practice is dependent on having synagogs and enough people reading and discussing the Torah. That doesn’t sound like a beef against rabbinic Judaism.
He sounds very forthcoming here: as a historian, he tries to trace to when there’s the earliest evidence of Judaism, as defined by the practice of the mitzvot of the Torah.
Maybe you have evidence outside the two interviews he did for Kedem for that assertion?
What a STUPID headline. Are you intentionally trying to be controversial or something? Is it for the Views and Clicks?
Very precise headline reflects the content
@@KEDEMChannel Judaism began with the Hebraic ancestors and their experiences with God, not with widespread observance among the Israelites. You're putting artificial limitations on the word "Judaism" to suit your needs. The common use and signification of the word is widely known in the public and of course it doesn't correspond with yours. Very dishonest.
The only starting point adequate to answer this question is to take the Bible as a credible historic document. If you do not believe that the one true God and creator called a Babylonian named Abram out of the land of Ur and his fathers house and established a covenant between God and this man then what basis can one have to embrace something called Judaism? If the bible was just a collection of made up stories by men living in Babylon during the 6th and 5 th centuries BC as some scholars both Jewish and non Jewish contend then there is no earthly reason to be Judaic you might say. No Abraham no Judaism it is that simple. Also when one talks of Judaism proper are we talking Rabbinic Judaism or actual biblical Judaism? Before the advent of the Rabbinic age what did the original Israelites believe and practice? After the childen of Israel settled in the land it was the written torah, the laws governing the ancient people that were to be followed to the letter and nothing else. This is the law David extols in Psalm 119 and the same law that Joshua was to meditate upon day and night. The same law that was to be given to any future and potential King. Joshua 1:8; Deuteronomy 17:17. The Rabbis have a lot of esplaining to do on this subject and the so called oral tradition. 😊 The Neviim never mention any oral laws or torah when God visits His ancient covenant people in judgment for their sin and disobedience. The people were driven out of the land specifically for disobedience. Such disobedience can only be rightly measured and judged by the Book of the Law Moses put together by the command of God. For example there is no reason not to address Elohim by His designated covenant name YHWH Yahweh. Or whatever way one chooses to pronounce it. The Torah is both law and history going back to creation and all of Elohims dealings with specifically chosen individuals. Adam Cain Enoch Noah and Job none of whom are Abraham's children. In fact Adam is the Father of the whole human race and we are all related to each other through him and Eve. The ten commandments are relative and relevant for all of humanity not just Jews. Cain was a murderer and can be condemned because he violated that particular moral law. Adam simply disobeyed the coomand not to eat of a particular tree in the garden and brought death upon himself and all his posterity. Death is not natural and a part of some inexplicable defect in nature. It came as a result of Adams transgression. This the Torah tells all of us. The holy scriptures must be regarded as absolutely true if there is to be a valid system of belief and morals for Jew or Gentile.
Well, Judaism began with the Torah. It's widespread observance by the Jews apparently began much later. Mistitled.
Not really, the title is appropriate. Please check the previous video, where the author points out to the definition of 'Judaism' as it is used in this rigorously academic work.
@@felipepantin Sure. It's always easy to win the argument when you're allowed to change the definitions to any thing you wish.
@@stevewarren3051 I see your point as well. Arguably, yes, my Judaism and yours may not be identically defined, but when you are writing a thesis, a clear definition from which to launch your research needs to be impeccably defined, and the author's choice rests on the grounds of (possibly widespread) praxis, and when evidence of it becomes apparent. Bear in mind that this is purely academic and it doesn't venture in the field of either faith or theology. Even if only academic, the work is enriching in and of itself. You can look at it as a thought experiment if you wish.
@@felipepantin It's not as if the Torah, as written by Moses, was totally ignored until the 2nd century BC and was therefore incomplete during that time. But, to be fair, Judaism in the current era contains the oral tradition and the Midrash. Something you could call new or updated Judiaism.
@@stevewarren3051 I agree with you, it definitely didn't go totally unnoticed or ignored between the time when the Pentateuch started being put down in writing and the time when the Judean cult started looking like something that could be recognized as the Judaism we know today (something that the author cares to point out). You also point out to a very good question: when and how the biblical text started to be written down. A subject for another episode :)