18

I've recently read this BBC article which makes the claim that Judaism originated some time around 2000 B.C, if not earlier. I've seen a number of sources which make similar claims (1, 2). Perhaps I'm mistaken, but don't all surviving Jewish texts date back to the Hellenistic period (~330 – 100 BCE)?

After my preliminary search, I stumbled on The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, which seems to reduce the credibility of claims that many notable figures of the Old Testament even existed. It claims these figures were products of the Iron Age, which would make these stories around 700-1000 years younger.

Is the only primary source which places the origins of Judaism at around 2000 B.C or earlier the Old Testament? And if so, is the Old Testament a sufficient source for the history of early Judaism? If not, then how old is Judaism?

pipe
  • 1,046
  • 2
  • 13
  • 17
nietsnegttiw
  • 183
  • 1
  • 8
  • 16
    It depends what we're defining as Judaism: after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, post-exilic Judaism, exilic Judaism, Ancient Hebrew religion, etc. – called2voyage May 04 '16 at 15:41
  • Is Judaism as it is delineated by the Torah a fair definition? – nietsnegttiw May 04 '16 at 15:49
  • 1
    If you mean the completed Torah, then you are by definition limiting the dating of Judaism to 571–486 BCE. – called2voyage May 04 '16 at 15:51
  • When the various sources I've listed make the claim that Judaism is over 3500 years old, to what definition of Judaism are they referring? – nietsnegttiw May 04 '16 at 15:55
  • They are likely referring to [Ancient Hebrew religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Semitic_religion) which is generally believed to have developed into monolatrism before it was codified as monotheism by the late monarchy. – called2voyage May 04 '16 at 15:58
  • Are the patriarchal narratives Ancient Hebrew religion? At what point are the events outlined by these narratives believed to have taken place? Would this not be the point at which Ancient Hebrew religion becomes Judaism? – nietsnegttiw May 04 '16 at 16:03
  • This discussion is proving too long for the comments, but those that accept any basis in history at all for the patriarchal narratives say that they would have had some form of Ancient Hebrew religion, yes. Abraham is usually dated roughly 2000 BCE. Yes, traditionally the transition from Ancient Hebrew religion to Judaism begins with Abraham and completes with Moses, but monolatrism as I said persisted until the late monarchy in Israel so the actual history is fuzzy. – called2voyage May 04 '16 at 16:08
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/39294/discussion-between-nietsnegttiw-and-called2voyage). – nietsnegttiw May 04 '16 at 16:52
  • 8
    The earliest written text discovered in or around Jerusalem is 3,000 years old. Is it representative of Judaism? Since no one can read it, who knows? http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Earliest-written-text-ever-found-in-Jerusalem-319649 But the silver scrolls of Ketef Hinnom "preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible and ... the earliest examples of confessional statements concerning Yahweh." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom – TARKUS May 05 '16 at 01:02
  • 8
    "the actual history is fuzzy" - that ends up being true of virtually ALL history once you start digging :) – user5341 May 06 '16 at 12:57
  • Note that before the destruction of the Temple, it was forbidden for the Jews to write down Oral Torah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah#Divine_source_and_transmission – Gabe12 May 06 '16 at 20:00
  • 5
    I don't think that this is an answerable question. The term "judaism" is way to vague, the historical data is too scarce, and things in general are complex than the question seem to assume. Read eg https://goo.gl/HHPNNq and https://goo.gl/O4dkct – leonbloy May 16 '16 at 21:24
  • @leonbloy I find it interesting that along with Finkelstein's selection of Dever as a "conservative", Finkelstein quotes Dever as discouraging "naive acceptance of the Bible's stories". Hmmm... – tniles May 24 '16 at 22:01
  • @tniles09 Of course labels as "conservative" are relative. However, I guess that in the scholars circles, to be conservative and to reject naive readings of biblical stories are not contradictory things. A conservative biblical scholar could perhaps believe, 150 years ago, that Jonah was eaten by a whale, or that the events of Exodus are mainly historical - today, you must be a crank to do so. – leonbloy May 24 '16 at 22:33
  • @leonbloy What changed in the last 150 (or so) years? Last I checked, there are still a significant number of people on the planet (and in recent history, in the context of your comment, e.g. within the last 50-100 years), laymen and scholarly, who support Biblical Inerrancy. – tniles May 24 '16 at 23:30
  • 1
    @tniles09 > What changed in the last 150 (or so) years? Everything has changed. "Biblical Inerrancy" in the "fundamentalist" sense (Jonah was indeed eaten by a whale, Jesus said exactly the words that the gospels tell, etc) is not held by serious biblical scholars. Speaking for the catholic church (I'm catholic), which is roughly moderate in these matters. you can read the semi official declaration of 1994 (https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM) (read especially the bit about the "Fundamentalist Interpretation") – leonbloy May 25 '16 at 00:43
  • Some of the texts under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hebrew_writings#Early_extra-biblical_inscriptions are unmistakably Jewish texts dating to as early as 11th — 10th century BCE , using biblical terminology and concepts. – Ofir May 26 '16 at 08:49
  • @Ofir Definitely Jewish in tradition, but not necessarily evidence of monotheism. – called2voyage May 26 '16 at 17:56
  • @leonbloy Have you considered the [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy) ([PDF](http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf))? The fact is that there are a lot of scholars who hold exactly that sort of view on inerrancy. As you show, apparently the Catholic church does not. That's okay for them, but it doesn't negate fact elsewhere. I would be happy to continue this conversation in chat or a different question if you want to set it up and provide a link to it here. – tniles Jun 01 '16 at 18:51
  • The First Temple is supposed to have been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. We have confirmation from other sources that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem around 587 BC, so this destruction is very likely historical. And this temple was probably built several hundred years before it was destroyed (Jewish sources claim it stood for 400 years, but we may need to discount this as hearsay). So this probably puts the building of the first temple between 1000 BC and 800 BC, and the origin of Judaism some time before that. – Peter Shor Jun 22 '16 at 18:12

2 Answers2

25

The comments on this question have correctly pointed out that it is possibly unanswerable because of the variety of meanings attributed to the word "Judaism." The question, as well as the encyclopedia sources it cites, seems to equate Judaism with the monotheistic worship of the Jewish people. When the Jews became monotheistic believers in "Judaism" is up for debate, even if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible. (Remember the golden calf?)

The ancient Jews seem to have worshiped several different gods. They were certainly united in a kingdom at several points, and still considered themselves a nation even after their kingdom was captured by the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Romans; however, the meaning of "nation" differed strongly between Jewish communities, as we learn from non-Biblical sources. Eventually all gods were excluded other than Yahweh, who received the sacrifices at the Second Temple. (source: review article) The history of the Jewish people spans thousands of years, going back to Bible narratives like Exodus that take place centuries before what archaeology can confirm, and the quasi-theological question of when "real" monotheism began can't be answered scientifically.

But to most people, in common parlance, Judaism means Rabbinic Judaism, which arose after the destruction of the Second Temple. Even scholars agree that this is the best way to define the term. Philip R. Davies, in his article "Beyond 'Biblical Archaeology'" (in Hjelm and Thompson, eds., Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity: Changing Perspectives, vol. 7, Routledge, 2016), gives a summary that justifies this definition through significant methodological background:

Reinhard Kratz has recently pointed out [in Historisches und biblisches Israel (Mohr Siebeck, 2013)] that Wellhausen's distinction between the religion of "ancient Israel" and the religion of Judaism remains a fundamentally important insight. . . . the biblical Israels are a product of various Judahite/Judean communities and not the other way around. . . .

The religion of Judaism – which can intelligibly be dated only to the second century CE at the earliest – is much more a product of the scriptures and the "Israels" , depicted in those scriptures, than it is the outcome of any events that occurred in the Iron Age.

Davies does acknowledge that Abraham and Moses lie at the "beginning" of Jewish religion, but the religion itself is much better defined, at least for outsider scholarly purposes, by the image of them in Scripture centuries later than by whatever was going on in Iron Age Israel. There is no such thing as a search for the "historical Abraham" by modern scholars, because it's no longer considered relevant who Abraham might have been outside of Scripture.

This answer may be confusing, but hopefully it can shed a bit of light on why the Dead Sea Scrolls are so important for Biblical scholars. The Jewish people were still in the process of defining their beliefs over the period of 400 BCE-300 CE when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, and they had not yet consolidated around the styles of transmission, interpretation, authority, reading, and practice that developed into modern Judaism. Yet there is plenty in the Scrolls that seems almost monotheistic and quite familiar.

Short answer: The Jewish people have existed for thousands of years, but the term "Judaism" before the rabbinical era (meaning the late Roman Empire) is basically not useful.

Community
  • 1
Avery
  • 44,313
  • 16
  • 183
  • 179
  • 1
    +1 though arguably Rabbinic Judaism became what it is with the production of the Talmud about 1600 years ago. – Henry May 26 '16 at 07:33
  • 6
    Current Jewish practice dates to around the destruction of the _second_ _Jewish_ temple, saying Judaism originated then is like saying Christianity dates to the First Council of Nicaea. The facts are all true here, but do not are not relevant to answer the original question. – Ofir May 26 '16 at 08:44
  • 4
    @Ofir I didn't say that "Jewish practice" dates to then, I said that the "religion of Judaism" dates to then and quoted an up-to-date academic source as evidence. It's a rather nitpicky distinction in terms of basic Jewish identity, but the question being asked is "how old is Judaism," so I've tried to answer in those terms. – Avery May 26 '16 at 08:56
  • 2
    @Ofir Christ-followers pre-Nicaea are very different from Christians post-Nicaea. The problem with calling anything pre-Nicaea Christianity is similar to the problem of calling anything before 70 CE Judaism. Even if you take the New Testament's account, Acts gives ample evidence that the early church had still not settled what the conditions for membership were. The problem with Judaism is even worse because it is older and less well attested. The early church at least left behind some of their original dialog. Jewish tradition before 7th century BC is all legend. – called2voyage May 26 '16 at 14:23
  • @Ali Thank you, I didn't know enough to put that into the answer. The reason I didn't look into it is because I got a sense that scholars disagree about the precise datings for those events and when Canaanite religion successfully became "Judaism". – Avery Jun 15 '16 at 04:22
  • 1
    A couple suggestions: The religious perspective is not that the bible was written 2500 BCE, it's closer to 1500 BCE. Or, by the calendar and perspective of Orthodox Jews, Mt. Sinai and the religion's start is 1313 BCE. Second, I would dispute what you say about Judaism only being from the Roman period. Although Judaism as we know it had a big change there, it is generally considered, and I think especially for the perspective of the question, that the start was more around when they became monotheistic, vaguely around 600 BCE. – A L Jun 15 '16 at 04:30
  • 1
    Can I just throw out there that while ancient Jews may have worshipped idols all throughout the Bible, those very same passages include prophets reprimanding them for it, G-d punishing them for it, or both? Judaism is and always has been a monotheistic religion - there were just those who did not obey the religion. – DonielF Dec 17 '17 at 12:16
  • @DonielF If you believe that the God of Israel actually spoke to the Israelites at that time, then sure, Judaism has always been a monotheistic religion. – Avery Dec 17 '17 at 14:20
  • 1
    @Avery To quote your answer - `When the Jews became monotheistic believers in "Judaism" is up for debate, even if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible.` The latter half of that statement isn't true in the slightest - if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, then Jews became monotheistic at the very latest when they received the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. – DonielF Dec 17 '17 at 15:39
  • @DonielF They did? Then why did they get reprimanded and punished? – Avery Dec 17 '17 at 19:07
  • 1
    @Avery ...because those who swore at Mt. Sinai to obey G-d weren’t? – DonielF Dec 17 '17 at 19:42
  • @DonielF is correct: the fact that a belief system punishes its adherents who violate some principle is evidence that the system _does_ espouse that principle, not evidence that it doesn't. To say that the story of Jews worshipping the golden calf means that Judaism wasn't monotheistic is to confuse the actions of Jews with the teachings of Judaism. An analogous incorrect argument would be that the use by some Roman Catholics of birth control implies that the Roman Catholic church doesn't forbid birth control. – phoog Dec 10 '20 at 07:28
5

One of the leading biblical scholars in the United States, Michael D. Coogan, dates the archeological evidence for the events described in the Old Testament at ca. 3300-1200 BCE.1

The first five books of the bible contain texts that are dated, at the outer bounds, to 922-722 BCE, this according to Richard Elliott Friedman, another prominent scholar of the old testament.2

Although these dates do not give us a definitive date for the founding of Judaism (and we can argue about what Judaism means), they provide reasonably accurate empirical evidence for ancient worship practices that constitute Judaism in its contemporary sense.3

1. See Chronology in the The Old Testament by Michael Coogan, pp. 550-7.

2. See "Introduction" in Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005.

3. Answer edited to reflect the suggestions in the discussion.

denten
  • 10,781
  • 4
  • 55
  • 77
  • It is a direct quote from his chronology. Your dating is correct though, now that I checked other sources. Removed the mention of Egypt since it was not essential to a concise answer. – denten Dec 08 '16 at 21:06
  • Thanks, I don't disagree with that date range for anything of historical value in Genesis or Exodus. – called2voyage Dec 08 '16 at 21:49