"The Invention of the Jewish People"

[volatile]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People

Dr. Shlomo Sand was on Radio 4's "Start the Week" this morning to talk about his work "The Invention of the Jewish People", whose central thesis seems to be that the idea of a nation-race of Jews is essentially a manufactured concept analogous to other racial-national concepts of identity (such as the German one) which emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries. No doubt this will be on BBC IPlayer for those of you in the UK. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00npjnj) He claims to have been unable to find any historical corroboration for elements of Jewish history long assumed to be factual - such as the exodus from the Middle East - and claims instead that the early Jews were a prosletysing religion made up of members from a vast diversity of ethnic backgrounds.

I haven't read the book, so I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has, or who has any alternative sources. Do Dr. Sand's claims stack up? Has he missed any particularly important sources of evidence?

I think the implications of his work, if legitimate, are fascinating. In his own words this morning, it seems that his political project is the combatting of anti-semitism by the dissolution of the racial basis for Jewish identity - in other words, if the Jews are not a racially-distinct group, it becomes impossible to speak against them in racial terms. As someone generally sceptical of the concept of "race" anyway, his thoughts are really interesting.

ETA: Reviews, commentary etc. at http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/

 

[Thunder]

Recent genetic research shows that while the Jews are OBVIOUSLY not a distinct racial group, many Ashenazi and Maghreb and even African Jews do share an ancestral line. And where does this line originate?

Kurdistan. go figure.

 

[Eddie Dane]

If Jews turn out to not actually be a distinct ethnic group, then Jew-haters cannot be rightly called racist.

Therefore we will need a new term to describe Jew haters.
After much brainstorming I suggest anti-Semite.

What do you think? Could it catch on?



But seriously,

Exodus not being true? Ya think?

National and other group identities rooted in myth? What's new?

I was in Germany last year during the anniversary of the Teutoburg Forest battle.
Still part of the German identity as the event that lead to the birth of Germany.

There's of course a lot more truth in the account of Teutoburg forest, then in Exodus. But it's function for identity is the same.

 

[volatile]

Exodus not being true? Ya think?

Well, yes, I would think, on reflection. But apparently the exodus (if not the Book of Exodus) is regarded as more-or-less historical fact by most scholars of Jewish history. His book's been quite controversial.

National and other group identities rooted in myth? What's new?

I was in Germany last year during the anniversary of the Teutoburg Forest battle.
Still part of the German identity as the event that lead to the birth of Germany.

There's of course a lot more truth in the account of s of Teutoburg forest, then in Exodus. But it's function for identity is the same.

I agree. And that seems to be the point Sands is making, too.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, _technically_ speaking, until the 18'th century or so the focus wasn't on "race" but on "religion". So, yes, starting discussing Jews as a race is newer than that.

The European Middle Ages were... a rather different time and place than today's Europe and America, and the very legislative and philosophical notions involved were not the same as today. So trying to trace modern notions like nationalism or racism back past the 18'th century or so, is necessarily going to hit quite a few dead ends.

The whole concept of a national identity was at best second fiddle to the feudal concept that, basically, what matters is who owns you. One's allegiance wasn't to a country, but to a King. Well, that was the theory that the kings tried to impose, at the very least.

The persecution of the Jews, to get to that part, was more motivated by religion than by all other factors combined.

Some of the first pogroms happened around the time of the first Crusade, for example, and were largely motivated by the same "Deus Vult!" rhetoric that caused the actual crusade. The whole rhetoric that God will automatically reward you if you go kill some heathens in his name, well, it didn't take much connecting dots to arrive at "so why don't we go after the heathens right here first?" And some people did just that. Race or nationalism played absolutely no role in it. The whole idea was to please Christ by converting or killing some heathens in his name.

Later, the horrible Black Death outbreaks meant the real rise of anti-Judaism, ghettos, expulsions and pogroms. (I'd call it anti-semitims, but, again, the semitic part played actually no role.) Essentially Europe had to reconcile a good and loving God with the horror that sometimes wiped out 80% of a city's population in excruciating pain. And the answers were basically two:

A) all evil exists because of people's free will to do evil, hence some humans are to blame,

B) it's God's punishment for our lack of faith.

The former gave us the witchcraft trials, accusations that the Jews poisoned the wells, etc. The latter gave us protestantism and rabid persecution of all heathens living in Christian lands, to prove our faith to God. And sometimes it's both, as in the burnings at the stake by the Spanish inquisition being called "act of faith." (Auto da fe.) It wasn't an euphemism or PR term, but an indication of the mentality there. Most people were desperately trying to prove their faith to God, so maybe God would spare them in the next outbreak.

Jews had the major misfortune of being non-Christians living in Christian lands, and an easy target whenever it came to proving "look how dedicated we are to spreading your Word" to God.

That some people traced their ancestry to the middle east, was really the least of problems at the time.

 

[GreNME]

Well, yes, I would think, on reflection. But apparently the exodus (if not the Book of Exodus) is regarded as more-or-less historical fact by most scholars of Jewish history. His book's been quite controversial.

Exodus from the Mid-East == Jewish Diasporas; Exodus from the Mid-East != Exodus from Egypt.

Historians are pretty positive about the Diasporas, regardless of the religious history. The Exodus story from biblical teaching, not so much.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I've heard / read this argument before, on (I think) a webpage put together by anti-zionist rabbis.

Recent genetic research shows that while the Jews are OBVIOUSLY not a distinct racial group, many Ashenazi and Maghreb and even African Jews do share an ancestral line. And where does this line originate?

Kurdistan. go figure.

Link, plz&ty. I've read the theories that European Jews are actually descendents of converted central asian people. However, I read that genetic testing had disproven this theory, i.e. gene mapping (or whatever it's called when they trace the history of a population through mitochondrial DNA) showed that Jewish people's genetic ancestry was mostly traced back to the middle-east area.

 

[Bikewer]

I wonder how many other "ethnic" groups would display a high degree of genetic similarity?

Not many, I'll wager.

 

[Fiona]

I could not hear the programme this morning but it will be broadcast again on radio 4 this evening for anyone who can get that and wants to

 

[Eddie Dane]

I wonder how many other "ethnic" groups would display a high degree of genetic similarity?

Not many, I'll wager.

I once heard that a stunningly high percentage of Spaniards have Jewish genes. Due to the mass conversions brought on by the Inquisition, hardly anyone is aware of any Jewish heritage.

Does anyone know about this?

 

[volatile]

Exodus from the Mid-East == Jewish Diasporas; Exodus from the Mid-East != Exodus from Egypt.

Oh, quite.

Historians are pretty positive about the Diasporas, regardless of the religious history. The Exodus story from biblical teaching, not so much.

That's pretty much what I thought - though Sand's reading (and again, I haven't read the book) seems to be that the "original" exodus didn't actually occur...

 

[GreNME]

Oh, quite.

Yeah, I thought you meant the same. I just wanted to clarify for others reading.

That's pretty much what I thought - though Sand's reading (and again, I haven't read the book) seems to be that the "original" exodus didn't actually occur...

That wouldn't be very controversial except to religious literalist types. Most historians accept the lack of supporting information of the story as indicating it was an exaggeration at least, complete fiction at most.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I've heard / read this argument before, on (I think) a webpage put together by anti-zionist rabbis.



Link, plz&ty. I've read the theories that European Jews are actually descendents of converted central asian people. However, I read that genetic testing had disproven this theory, i.e. gene mapping (or whatever it's called when they trace the history of a population through mitochondrial DNA) showed that Jewish people's genetic ancestry was mostly traced back to the middle-east area.

IIRC, you are referring to the Khazars, a steppe people who, by interaction with a number of Jews in the region, ended up converting around 8oo or 900 AD. Not sure if the following wave of Turkic adoption of Islam in the same general area swallowed them up or not, but I think it's a good way to bet.

Kurds are from the other side of Anatolia, in the northwestern parts of Iraq, Eastern Syria, and Northewest Iran. What I think Parky is referring to is the initial emigration into the Holy Land from a generally Mesopotamian region -- Kurdish, Chaldean, whatever -- that is often associated with Abram/Abraham.

DR

 

[ddt]

That's pretty much what I thought - though Sand's reading (and again, I haven't read the book) seems to be that the "original" exodus didn't actually occur...

No, what Sand is referring to is the alleged expulsion of the Jews from Judea after the Jewish Revolt of 66-73. There was no wholesale expulsion; Sand argues that the Romans didn't have the logistics for that (and no-one had, until the 20th Century), and that the Romans at most expelled some 10,000.

The argument is actually even easier: after the Jewish Revolt, there was the Kitos war of 115-117 and the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132-135, of Jews against Rome. Bar Kochba wasn't followed by expulsion either; only by the measure that Jews were not allowed to live in Jerusalem.

But there remained thriving Jewish communities, e.g., in the Galilee. As witnessed by the later War against Gallus (351-352) and the Revolt against Heraclius (610-625), where the Jews of Palestine first sided with the Persians and helped them conquer Jerusalem, and later sided with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius to again drive out the Persians. The Byzantine reign was short-lived: in 638 the Muslim Arabs conquered Jerusalem.

Sands second point in this regard is that todays' Palestinians descend from the Jews that had remained in Palestine and had, in majority, gradually converted to Islam. Farmers don't move, in general: they remain on their patch of land, for centuries. The Arab invasion was one of a conquering army and a handful of administrators, not of a whole people that resettled to another land. Genetic studies also show that Palestinians are more related to Kurds than to Arabs from the Arabian peninsula.

And yes, I agree with Sand on both counts. Disclaimer: I didn't read his book, only the handful of reviews that the wiki article pointed to.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Sand's book central theme is that the European Jews are not descendants of Israelits, but of Khazars, which converted to Judaism in the 9th century. This aspect was covered here many times. Some links:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152179
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3869276#post3869276
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4139134#post4139134

That theory is just plain wrong, as is shown by genetic tests. Sand also makes many claims about Jewish history which amount to straw manning.

According to Sand, this historical truth was concealed by Zionist thinkers, who developed an ethno-biological ideology, and the so-called "Jewish people" was invented as late as the 19th century. Furthermore, he argues, the idea of a "nation" that was exiled from its homeland in ancient times and which is destined to return to it in the modern age so as to rebuild its independent state is merely an invented myth.

Sand also maintains that, in the era preceding the emergence of European nationalism, the Jews were an ethnic group, not a nation. In his eyes, the argument promulgated by the Zionists and by their successors in the Israeli political arena concerning our "right to this land" rests on a biological-genetic ideology; that argument became the "narrative of the ruling group" thanks to the fact that the "authorized scholars of the past" have concealed the truth concerning the real, impure origin of the Jews.

My response to Sand's arguments is that no historian of the Jewish national movement has ever really believed that the origins of the Jews are ethnically and biologically "pure." Sand applies marginal positions to the entire body of Jewish historiography and, in doing so, denies the existence of the central positions in Jewish historical scholarship.

No "nationalist" Jewish historian has ever tried to conceal the well-known fact that conversions to Judaism had a major impact on Jewish history in the ancient period and in the early Middle Ages. Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions. Important groups in the Jewish national movement expressed reservations regarding this myth or denied it completely.

 

[Doctor Evil]

ETA: Reviews, commentary etc. at http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/

By the way, I do not know whether the author runs this website, or whether it is someone else. In any case, they seem to be happy to publish reviews from well known racists. Telling.

 

[Doctor Evil]

No, what Sand is referring to is the alleged expulsion of the Jews from Judea after the Jewish Revolt of 66-73. There was no wholesale expulsion; Sand argues that the Romans didn't have the logistics for that (and no-one had, until the 20th Century), and that the Romans at most expelled some 10,000.

The argument is actually even easier: after the Jewish Revolt, there was the Kitos war of 115-117 and the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132-135, of Jews against Rome. Bar Kochba wasn't followed by expulsion either; only by the measure that Jews were not allowed to live in Jerusalem.

But there remained thriving Jewish communities, e.g., in the Galilee. As witnessed by the later War against Gallus (351-352) and the Revolt against Heraclius (610-625), where the Jews of Palestine first sided with the Persians and helped them conquer Jerusalem, and later sided with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius to again drive out the Persians. The Byzantine reign was short-lived: in 638 the Muslim Arabs conquered Jerusalem.

Sands second point in this regard is that todays' Palestinians descend from the Jews that had remained in Palestine and had, in majority, gradually converted to Islam. Farmers don't move, in general: they remain on their patch of land, for centuries. The Arab invasion was one of a conquering army and a handful of administrators, not of a whole people that resettled to another land. Genetic studies also show that Palestinians are more related to Kurds than to Arabs from the Arabian peninsula.

And yes, I agree with Sand on both counts. Disclaimer: I didn't read his book, only the handful of reviews that the wiki article pointed to.

I suspect you are assuming here too much. I do not think that any Jewish historian would claim that the whole population was exiled. However, a fairly large number were taken as slaves, and send to Rome. (I seem to vaguely remember a book claim that the price of slaves dropped at the time. Can't remember the name.)

There is plenty of evidence for Jewish communities around the Mediterranean in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The assumption that all remaining Jews were located in the Galilee is not true. (Not necessarily an assumption you make, but one needed for Sand's thesis.)

Sand's thesis is not that current Palestinians are related to Israelites, but rather that current European Jews are not. That thesis is simply wrong. For instance, the same genetic tests you mention clearly show that European Jews are related to i) middle eastern Jews, ii) Palestinians, and iii) Kurds.

 

[Thunder]

Sand's book central theme is that the European Jews are not descendants of Israelits, but of Khazars, which converted to Judaism in the 9th century.

never mind the fact that a good 30% of the World's Jews are not Ashkenazi.

 

[GreNME]

never mind the fact that a good 30% of the World's Jews are not Ashkenazi.

Some would say more than that.

 

[Skeptic]

ddt: your facts are basically correct, of course. But:

1). This is well known, and certainly not some sort of "horrible truth" that is "hidden" by Jewish historians. Just take any course in Jewish history in your local community college and you'll be taught the same facts you posted.

2). Just because the schoolboy "the romans kicked us out in 70 AD" version is false doesn't mean there was no diaspora or that it was not caused to a great degree by the roman conquest. The details are more complicated, but the basic truth is still true.

3). The argument in (2) is true for every historical event whatever. Washington didn't actually chop down the cherry tree, but that doesn't mean the American revolution is a fiction. Joshua didn't conquer Cna'an in a fierce battle like in the Bible -- there is evidence of great amount of non-Israelite people living in the area hundreds of years after the first Israelite settlements -- but that doesn't mean the conquest of Cna'an is not an historical fact.