The Origins of Judaism

Yonatan Adler’s The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal offers much to readers interested in ancient Judaism. In the introduction Adler outlines his methodology, followed by six main chapters that cover dietary laws, ritual purity, figural art, tefillin and mezuzot, miscellaneous practices, and the synagogue. The concluding chapter brings together the main through-arguments of the book. Each main chapter starts with a summary of the topic(s) as discussed in the Torah, followed by a presentation of these topics in (where relevant) Philo, the New Testament, Josephus, and non-Judean authors. Discussions of the early textual and archaeological evidence for the observation of the relevant practices (usually c. 200 bce–100 ce) follow. In each chapter, Adler notes that there is a general lack of evidence for the discussed practices prior to the 2^nd or 1^st century bce. Only subsequently do commonly found materials, or significant specific finds, suggest general observance.

Adler’s investigation is concerned with the lived practice of ancient Jews, defined as “the observance of the laws of the Torah in their everyday lives” (xi). Adler notes that this characterization is flexible, perhaps limited to a given Jew being “rudimentarily aware of the existence of something like Torah” and being “nominally committed to obeying its rules” (2). Furthermore, Adler characterizes Judaism in antiquity as being intrinsically linked with Torah (albeit, as noted, flexibly), itself described as “the entire system of law” surrounding the written material of the Torah (4–7).

At this point I wish to raise two key questions:

• To what extent can these texts explain archaeological phenomena?
• To what extent can we determine texts to be evidence of a practice?

Regarding the interpretation of archaeological materials, I will address my point with reference to chapter 2, “Ritual Purity.” Purity discourses were widespread in the ancient world, and there is plentiful material in Jewish sources that illustrate a variety of perspectives. Broadly, there was a conception that certain interactions, objects or procedures can make one (im)pure. Two archaeological phenomena are connected to specifically Judean purity conceptions: immersion pools and stone (chalk) vessels. Immersion pools facilitate washing, an often-described step for achieving purity/dealing with impurity, while stone vessels are thought to limit the spread of impurity.

Adler, like many other scholars, posits that immersion pools most likely attest to ritual bathing for the purpose of purification. While I agree with this, I wish to leave open broader possibilities. Such pools could have been used for multiple activities, and perhaps by people other than Judeans. There is no account before the 2^nd century ce of anyone using these pools, so it is not clear that we can assign a singular purpose to all of them, or determine that every person used a pool in the same way. Adler writes that “we know that Judeans regularly immersed in water to ritually purify themselves,” linking this to the construction of these pools (65). Yet most sources which discuss purificatory immersion specifically reiterate the requirements of the Torah itself or concern practices associated with the Temple. Can these disparate texts be taken as evidence for widespread practice, or might they instead simply indicate widespread literary engagement with the Torah?

Furthermore, while these pools are commonly found, the predominance of pools at places like Jerusalem can overshadow the fact that many sites have few. At Gamla, a mid-sized Jewish community, only four pools have been excavated (dated to c. 100 bce–68 ce). Although we may yet excavate many more pools, the evidence does not yet show that bathing in such installations was available in most Judean households.

Regarding the use of textual evidence, chapter 5 is particularly illustrative. The chapter discusses miscellaneous practices, with sections devoted to circumcision, sabbath prohibitions, various feasts and festivals, and the seven-branched menorah. Most of these sections discuss early textual evidence for the observance of these practices. Here, I struggle with the use of textual evidence as indicative of a given practice’s spread. For example, can we say that stories of sabbath observance in First and Second Maccabees are evidence for a widely observed practice? Surely these texts are as interested in advancing a specific vision of Judaism as earlier texts were. I do not see why texts of the 2^nd or 1^st century bce, which engage with prior textual traditions, can serve as representations of normative practices in Judea (or elsewhere), while earlier texts do not. If the Hebrew Bible is (rightly) regarded as a suspect source for determining general observances, then Josephus or Philo should be similarly suspect. Non-Judean sources typically offer little in the way of information and are often couched in stereotypes or general suspicion of particularly non-Roman practices.

The final chapter summarizes the book’s findings that there is a lack of positive evidence in favor of Persian- or Early Hellenistic-period Torah observance among all but a few Judeans (whether in Judea or in the diaspora). It was the influence of the Hasmoneans, Adler suggests, that led to widespread Torah observance: this foundation for Judaism provided “a viable and attractive alternative to Hellenism” (231). While I question Adler’s framing, in general I think he is correct to argue that the Hasmoneans utilized certain aspects of Torah observance in their expression of power.

Adler’s work is careful and does not typically make bold claims beyond well-founded interpretations of the evidence. Yet interpretations are not themselves data. Concrete answers to the opening question (when did widespread observance of Judaism begin?) are perhaps unachievable. The archaeological materials provide some suggestive data, but cannot speak for themselves. The interpretations of such materials first and foremost determine how we can then apply them to questions of lived and social experience in antiquity.

Adler’s book is a challenging and important contribution to the study of ancient Judaism. There is much to praise in the volume—its readability, attention to detail, clear focus, and grounding in careful scholarship. It will surely promote much discussion and provides many good reasons to accept Adler’s conclusions. However, I remain unconvinced that the question can be settled with the currently accessible material.

Joseph Scales is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow at the University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.

Joseph Scales

Date Of Review:

July 28, 2023