Converting to Judaism in ancient times

[Malthus]

Heh, interesting questions; I really don't know the answers. I believe that conversion to Judaism was never really "promoted", mainly because Jews more or less always viewed themselves as a nation as much as a religion.

According to Christian sources the Jews were pretty active in seeking converts once Christianity really took off.  It is one of the reasons the Roman Empire starting passing laws forbiding people from converting and the church started up the persecutions in Spain.

Also there are lots of letters where Bishops are worried that the locals do not really understand the differences between Judaism and Christianity and are easily fooled and worse most of the Rabbis are better speakers and are poaching too many Germans.

And then Jews worked to convert the Russians and Turkish groups to Judaism for an important reason: the scriptures said that if there was Jewish King the Messiah could not have come...so they figured if they could get a king to convert it would prove the Church wrong.  They did get a few Kings but it didn't really impress anybody.

I think the historical evidence shows an evangelical period of Jewish history between 100 and 800 or so.  How else do we explain the sudden presence of so many Jews all around Europe anyway?

The traditional explaination is the conversion en mass of the Khazars, for more or less political reasons. This theory (popular with anti-Zionists and Jew haters for some reason) has been lately discredited by DNA evidence ... which also rules out massive conversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim

A 1999 study by Hammer et al., published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[46] According to Nicholas Wade "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."[47]

A 2001 study by Nebel et al. found Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%) at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. The authors hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19, and to a greater extent Eastern European populations in general, might be descendants of Khazars.[48]

A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow between the two groups. The authors hypothesized that "R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars". They concluded "However, if the R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazi Jews do indeed represent the vestiges of the mysterious Khazars then, according to our data, this contribution was limited to either a single founder or a few closely related men, and does not exceed ~ 12% of the present-day Ashkenazim.[49]

In short ... there seems to have been small intermixing of any sort, whether by "Khazars" or by conversion of other Europeans; but the whole question is, unfortunately, fraught with controversy because of the competing imperatives of zionism, anti-zionism, and anti-semitism.

All an absurdity from an anthropological point of view of course: what possible difference does it make if one's ancestry is real or fictive? So far, the science appears to be on the side of "not much conversion, ancestry real".

[Malthus]

if you are Catholic, think of it as the parable about the "Good Protestant" and you'll have the flavour of it).

Impossible, there's no such thing. 

Didn't know the Samaritans were Jews at the time.  Was always taught they were "neighbours", like Americans for us

As Minsky points out, it depends on what one means by "Jews"; certainly they share a common religious ancestry, one could quibble whether they are seperate branches of "Judaism" or whether the Samaritans are not Jewish but "Israelite".

[viper37]

Prior to the destruction of the temple, there were various "factions" of Jews - such as saduccees, pharisees, essenes, and zealots (and of course the Christians), but not different branches.  After the destruction, there was a split between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Jews (Karaites) for a long time - but most of the latter eventually disappeared (except for the Ethiopian Falashas who were rediscovered this century).

Ah there's the difference that escaped me.

So they were not all identical, but there were some differences.  What were the differences between the samaritans, pharisees and "regular" jews?

[The Minsky Moment]

Certainly if one defines "Jews" as those who are part of the centralized  Jerusalem-centred cult, there are no Jews who are not part of the centralized cult.

I think that is the usual definition though: "Jews" = Judahites = the Jerusalem-centered cult.  If you start including other groupings that trace a lineage to the patriarchs, you sweep in others, including Muslims.  Of course the taxonomy is inherently somewhat arbitrary.  But it serves a useful purpose here I think - Judaism as we understand the term today formed out of a process of ideological definition that to a significant extent involved a conscious differentiation as against the religious tradition that gave rise to the Samaritans.  I guess one could say the Samaritans are a kind of Jew in the same sense that Jews are a kind of Christian.

[Malthus]

Prior to the destruction of the temple, there were various "factions" of Jews - such as saduccees, pharisees, essenes, and zealots (and of course the Christians), but not different branches.  After the destruction, there was a split between Talmudic and non-Talmudic Jews (Karaites) for a long time - but most of the latter eventually disappeared (except for the Ethiopian Falashas who were rediscovered this century).

Ah there's the difference that escaped me.

So they were not all identical, but there were some differences.  What were the differences between the samaritans, pharisees and "regular" jews?

This is a broad-brush description at best ...

Samaritans - did not worship at the central Temple of Jerusalem; did not identify with the Jews who went into Babylonian captivity; Unlike All other forms of "Jew" in these respects. Some obscure doctrinal differences.

Pharisees - ancestors of rabbinical Judaism. Get a bad rap in the NT because they were the direct competitors to Christianity. Opponents of the Sadducees. Lower class, favour decentralization (under teachers or "rabbis"), disfavour hellenization, more "democratic", less literal in interpretation of the scriptures (commentaries given greater weight).

Sadducees - upper class, favour temple centralization, favour hellenization, more "monarchical", more literal in scripture. Totally destroyed along with the temple.

The conflict in the NT between Jesus and the Pharisees is bitter because it is in the nature of a civil war - Jesus himself sprang from the Pharisee tradition.   

[viper37]

As Minsky points out, it depends on what one means by "Jews"; certainly they share a common religious ancestry, one could quibble whether they are seperate branches of "Judaism" or whether the Samaritans are not Jewish but "Israelite".

He'll always be Keynes to me.


I'm more interested in the religious&cultural differences than the genetic pool

[The Minsky Moment]

Ah there's the difference that escaped me.

So they were not all identical, but there were some differences.  What were the differences between the samaritans, pharisees and "regular" jews?

It's hard to know for certain because the source material is limited and there is good reason to believe that it is biased.  Probably the *best* written historical source on the period was Josephus, who also happened to be an admitted master con man and confabulator.

The Pharisees were "teachers of the law" and traditionally are viewed as the ancestors of the rabbis and rabbinic Judaism (ie the dominant brand of Judaism today).  The Saducees were traditionally thought to be a clique of priests and aristocratic types interested in defending their ancient prerogatives as against the upstart lay Pharisees.  The Essenes are somewhat obscure, but the usual account is that they are some kind of mystically-oriented movement, possibly with gnostic tendencies (but maybe not).  Zealots were political radicals who wanted to overthrow Roman rule.  Samaritans have already been discussed.

Christian tradition is hostile to the Pharisees and the term has entered the lexicon as synonym for close-minded and rigid application of law - but the reality is quite different - the Pharisees tried to use basic hermeneutical techniques to moderate the strict application of the law, and clashed with the more conservative priesthood.  There is reason to believe that Jesus (or at least the Jesus protrayed in the Gospels) either was a pharisee himself or had some training from a pharasaic teacher - Jesus is depicted as a "teacher of the law" who uses parable and dialogue to interpret its true meaning, and clashes openly with the priesthood.

And I see Malthus has covered much the same ground . . .

[saskganesh]

OT, but interesting article about the history of circumcision here:

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

[viper37]

This is a broad-brush description at best ...

Samaritans - did not worship at the central Temple of Jerusalem; did not identify with the Jews who went into Babylonian captivity; Unlike All other forms of "Jew" in these respects. Some obscure doctrinal differences.

Pharisees - ancestors of rabbinical Judaism. Get a bad rap in the NT because they were the direct competitors to Christianity. Opponents of the Sadducees. Lower class, favour decentralization (under teachers or "rabbis"), disfavour hellenization, more "democratic", less literal in interpretation of the scriptures (commentaries given greater weight).

Sadducees - upper class, favour temple centralization, favour hellenization, more "monarchical", more literal in scripture. Totally destroyed along with the temple.

The conflict in the NT between Jesus and the Pharisees is bitter because it is in the nature of a civil war - Jesus himself sprang from the Pharisee tradition.  

thanks

Re: Samaritans.
Samaritans vs Jerusalem Jews = Orthodox VS Catholics or Christians VS Jews?

[Malthus]

Certainly if one defines "Jews" as those who are part of the centralized  Jerusalem-centred cult, there are no Jews who are not part of the centralized cult.

I think that is the usual definition though: "Jews" = Judahites = the Jerusalem-centered cult.  If you start including other groupings that trace a lineage to the patriarchs, you sweep in others, including Muslims.  Of course the taxonomy is inherently somewhat arbitrary.  But it serves a useful purpose here I think - Judaism as we understand the term today formed out of a process of ideological definition that to a significant extent involved a conscious differentiation as against the religious tradition that gave rise to the Samaritans.  I guess one could say the Samaritans are a kind of Jew in the same sense that Jews are a kind of Christian.

I disagree that the difference involved is as significant. It is like saying that Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox Christians share enough in common to all be "Christians" objectively speaking, in spite of the fact that at times they have hated each other with a passion and considered each other total opposites - but Muslims do not. 

It all depends on what question you are answering. To my mind if someone is asking a question like in the OP, providing a 'definitional' answer is unsatisfying, particularly when you know that as a matter of fact splinter groups did exist; the OP is unlikely to know enough to ask about "Israelites" rather than "Jews".

[Malthus]

As Minsky points out, it depends on what one means by "Jews"; certainly they share a common religious ancestry, one could quibble whether they are seperate branches of "Judaism" or whether the Samaritans are not Jewish but "Israelite".

He'll always be Keynes to me.


I'm more interested in the religious&cultural differences than the genetic pool

I mean religious ancestry, not genetic.

The issue is that the "Jerusalem" Israelites were the ones who were expelled by the Babylonian captivity, and returned to rebuild the Temple. The "Samaritans" never left and refused to join the Temple-based cult.

[Malthus]

This is a broad-brush description at best ...

Samaritans - did not worship at the central Temple of Jerusalem; did not identify with the Jews who went into Babylonian captivity; Unlike All other forms of "Jew" in these respects. Some obscure doctrinal differences.

Pharisees - ancestors of rabbinical Judaism. Get a bad rap in the NT because they were the direct competitors to Christianity. Opponents of the Sadducees. Lower class, favour decentralization (under teachers or "rabbis"), disfavour hellenization, more "democratic", less literal in interpretation of the scriptures (commentaries given greater weight).

Sadducees - upper class, favour temple centralization, favour hellenization, more "monarchical", more literal in scripture. Totally destroyed along with the temple.

The conflict in the NT between Jesus and the Pharisees is bitter because it is in the nature of a civil war - Jesus himself sprang from the Pharisee tradition.   

thanks

Re: Samaritans.
Samaritans vs Jerusalem Jews = Orthodox VS Catholics or Christians VS Jews?

As far as I know, more Orthodox vs. Catholic (only more so, the Temple being rather more significant than the Pope).

[The Minsky Moment]

Re: Samaritans.
Samaritans vs Jerusalem Jews = Orthodox VS Catholics or Christians VS Jews?

It's complicated.

To a certain degree it depends how much at face value you take the historical books of the OT.  The OT suggests that the religious tradition associated with the House of David was from the beginning of the Isreaelite state THE proper and correct religion, and that subsequently the northern kingdom fell into heresy and idolotry.

More likely, the reality is that the the northern tribes were dominant politically, religiously and culturally.  It's clear that the major traditional Israelite religious shrines - Schechem and Shiloh - were in the north, in Ephraimite contry.  The Ephraimites were probably the dominant tribe and  probably formed the backbone of the early Israelite political entity (they had the prestige of association with the Joseph culture hero).  Jerusalem was a strategically important settlement because of its geographic position, but traditionally had no cultic significance - it was formerly a Jebusite city (ie non-Israelite tribe).  After the two kingdoms split (assuming there ever was a united kingdom to begin with), the northern kingdom is definitely the more significant entity.  Its kings are mentioned in Egyptian and Assyrian diplomatic correspondence - this is in sharp contrast to David and Solomon about whom there is no contemporaneous historical record.  It is for a time a significant regional power whereas the Jerusalem based kingdom is basically a rump statelet. 

My own view is that northern kings that get criticized in the OT were probably not wicked reprobates defying their God, but rather they were just following their own Ephraimate-based religious tradition, which was of relatively ancient vintage.  That tradition probably had a somewhat different iconography and ritual practice, may have had differing attitudes towards tolerance or integration of other Canaanite or Amorite religious traditions, and definitely had a different view about sites of cultic significance.  In particular, it did not attach any religious importance to Jerusalem.  Obviously the priests in the little Kingdom of Judah thought differently, but their views were not of so great significance until the northern Kingdom was annihiliated in a catastrophic war with the Assyrians.

the punchline here is that the religious practice of the Judah-ites probably starts as an innovation as against an older, more established northerm religious tradition.  The collapse of the northern kingdom accelerates that process of differentiation, as not surprisingly the Judah-ite priests conclude the God has punished the north for its evil ways.  That process as it continues and is shaped in new directions by Judah's own fall and exile, results in a new religion of Judah-ism, as distinct from what had come before.  In this sense, the Jews are the "christians" to the "jews" of the old Ephraimite-dominate Israelite confederation.  With the Samaritans as the conscious (if not genetic) inheritors of the Ephraimite religious tradition.

[Valmy]

In short ... there seems to have been small intermixing of any sort, whether by "Khazars" or by conversion of other Europeans; but the whole question is, unfortunately, fraught with controversy because of the competing imperatives of zionism, anti-zionism, and anti-semitism.

All an absurdity from an anthropological point of view of course: what possible difference does it make if one's ancestry is real or fictive? So far, the science appears to be on the side of "not much conversion, ancestry real".

Well pity that discussion has to be all about Zionism and Israel.

I find it odd that the Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Ashkenazi are all shown to genetically identical they all sorta look different to me.  Pity it has to be some sort of attack on Judaism that they might have converted and intermarried with locals.  I mean poor Jews: damned if they do intermarry and damned  if they don't.

[Valmy]

Christian tradition is hostile to the Pharisees and the term has entered the lexicon as synonym for close-minded and rigid application of law - but the reality is quite different - the Pharisees tried to use basic hermeneutical techniques to moderate the strict application of the law, and clashed with the more conservative priesthood.  There is reason to believe that Jesus (or at least the Jesus protrayed in the Gospels) either was a pharisee himself or had some training from a pharasaic teacher - Jesus is depicted as a "teacher of the law" who uses parable and dialogue to interpret its true meaning, and clashes openly with the priesthood.

Yeah that anti-pharisee stuff really makes me uncomfortable.