Shaye J. D. Cohen

This is the shoddiest piece of scholarship I've ever read in my entire life. If I submitted a paper sourced and written like this book in my first year history class, my professor would have thrown my paper out and chastised me, and rightfully so. How this book is so highly reviewed completely astounds me, which I can only attribute either to deep ignorance on the subject matter or deep implicit bias against those Cohen misrepresents here. Cohen's theses rest on heavily cherry picked show more sources, major logic fallacies, and implicit race essentialism. He is often contradicted by his own sources, and he buries contradicting evidence or doubt regarding his sources deep in footnotes to what he states as fact in the actual text. Cohen frequently betrays a deep bias against converts to Judaism that he clearly projects onto Jews in antiquity, not so subtly in a bid to undermine the historical validity of conversion to Judaism and the Jewishness of converts in antiquity (and by extension, modern day converts).

To give some examples, in chapter 5, he claims that Jews in antiquity did not see "proselytes" as "becoming Jewish" because, according to him, Jewish texts "put this locution exclusively in the mouths of gentiles" and that otherwise Jewish texts "use other terms." In the explanatory footnote, Cohen then lists numerous examples of CONVERTS referring to themselves has having become Jewish (or Israelite or Hebrew) in Jewish texts. While Cohen backtracks somewhat within the footnote that "converts and gentiles" use these expressions, in the actual text, Cohen firmly states "*exclusively* gentiles" use this wording. In essence, Cohen referred to converts to Judaism as non-Jews. There are even further problems. Cohen is contradicted by his own sources. He cites Yevamot 47b here and heavily in chapter 7, which clearly states that a convert "is like an Israelite in every way." Even more damning, Cohen brings up himself Esther 8:16, which clearly and explicitly refers to non-Jews "becoming Jewish." The even deeper problem is that Cohen's claim here, even if it were not contradicted by textual evidence, does not follow from how Jewish texts generally express debate and disagreement. When converts (and the occasional gentile) are repeatedly recorded in Jewish texts as "having become Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew," there is no pushback or even a sense of irony present. Jewish texts do not express disagreement through silence. Often, silence is affirmation. Here, these texts are simply letting ancient gerim speak for themselves, not invalidating them.

There are more profound issues. Cohen proceeds to argue that gerim in antiquity could not have been truly equal with born Jews by dismissing, without good reason, every single rabbinic text (and there are MANY) affirming the inclusion and equality of gerim in favor of focusing on a single Mishnaic source, M. Bikkurim 1:4-5 (which is likely more concerned with legal technicality than the sweeping identity-based generalizations Cohen tortures out of it). This is the entire focus of chapter 10, which Cohen primarily bases his assertion of how ancient gerim were perceived identity-wise. He completely ignores the existence of Tosefta Bikkurim 1:6 (which is the actual basis of modern Jewish halacha on the addressed issue), dated to the same general time period as M. Bikkurim, a majority opinion directly contradicting M. Bikkurim 1:4 and affirming that gerim are considered the descendants of Abraham, fundamentally undermining Cohen's attempt to portray ancient Jews generally not accepting converts' full Jewishness on the basis of bloodline.

There are major source issues in chapter 5 again. One being that Cohen uncritically cites the Acts of Pilate on the high priests' supposed attitudes towards converts. The Acts of Pilate is a 4th century apocryphal Christian text attempting to exonerate Pilate for the execution of Jesus and blaming Jews, particularly the high priests, instead. This is a polemic against Jewish authorities, not a reliable historical source. Citing this text on the beliefs of the high priests is like citing the Protocols of the Elder of Zion on the political activities of 19th century Jews. He also cites some Qumran texts, actually written by an extremist sect that believed most Jews were impure and heretical, and presents their expressed attitudes against (supposedly) converts as if they are representative of all Jews in antiquity. Cohen also buries in a footnote that there is scholarly doubt whether the "ger" referred to in the Qumran texts is actually a convert (ger tzedek) or a resident alien (ger toshav), all while treating the interpretation that it refers to converts as fact in the actual text.

His thesis in chapter 3 that conversion to Judaism was a Hellenistic innovation from the Hasmonean period is laughably easy to debunk. He rests a significant portion of his argument on his claim that the earliest accounts of conversion to Judaism only date to the Hasmonean period. This is blatantly false, and all you need to do to debunk this is go listen to the megillah on Purim. The Book of Esther, dated by most scholars to the 5th century BCE (THREE centuries BEFORE the Hasmoneans), contains a clear, explicit reference to conversion to Judaism (8:16; and one that cuts through Cohen's sound and fury over whether converts were truly seen as "becoming Jews"), which Cohen is clearly aware of because he cited it in a footnote elsewhere in the book. He also bases his thesis on the idea that Torah cannot possibly be referring to converts at any point with the word "ger," with much torturous and poorly backed assertions and selective reading, but ultimately because (quoting Bickerman), "Oriental civilizations had no concept of naturalization," a blatantly racist generalization.

I could go on, but this review is long enough. This book has little to do with "the beginnings of Jewishness," but rather projections of modern insecurities over race, ethnicity, and religion. This is not a credible scholarly work but rather a hit piece on the validity of conversion to Judaism. Don't waste your money or your time. show less

Who was (in antiquity) a Jew ? Or who was considered a Jew, and by whom ? When did Judeans become Jews, and what did that mean ? And in what circumstances were those considered Jews by some, not so considered by others ? And what did these former consider themselves to be ? In what ways did people who were not, become Jews ?

These are just some of the many variations of the questions around a theme that is the focus of this book. After dealing lucidly with the question of whether Herod the show more Great was a Jew ( he was considered as one, though he may not have been so today), each of the following chapters involves an intense examination of texts – contemporary Jewish and non-Jewish historians, old and new Testaments, Mishna, Talmud and the writings of the Church Fathers – which shed different light on the definition of Jewishness. Certain texts – such as the source texts in Exodus and Deuteronomy for the banning of intermarriage, and the rabbinic exegeses on these, or the Mishnaic text which appears to be the source of the matrilineal principle – are held up to the light and examined from many different angles. in order to try and deduce a historical narrative. The scholarship of this book is profound (and it is not always an easy read), but is written non-dogmatically and with occasional flashes of humor.

An historic event which is minutely examined is the supposed forced-conversion of the Iddumeans to Judaism by the Hasmonean king, John Hyrcanus around 118 BCE. A number of historians – Josephus, Philo, Strabo and Ptolemy – record this, and the parallel event concerning the Ituraeans in the Galilee who were also supposedly forced to either convert or leave by Hyrcanus’ son Aristobulus in 104 BCE. These events are extraordinary because, until that time there is no evidence of what we call Judaism i.e. a religion; the way the Judeans lived their lives – rejecting polytheism, worshiping in a Temple in Jerusalem, circumcision, various dietary restrictions, etc – was just that; the life style of the Judean ethnic group. Although non-Judeans might choose to adopt one or more of these practices, and to live among Judeans, they would in effect lose – or have to suppress - their ethnic identity (as for example did any women who married into another ethnic group). What the Hasmoneans had absorbed – and it was this that enabled them to pursue this novel course – was the Hellenistic distinction between ethnicity and polity. In other words, you might chose to join another polity, and adopt the customs and mores of that polity, while still retaining your own ethnic identity. By this time, the whole area was full of “Greek” polises - cities belonging to the Hellenistic polity, whose citizens were Syrians, Cappodocians, Egyptians, etc. What the Hasmoneans did was to create a Judean polity, whose citizens were both Iddumean and Ituraeans as well as Judeans. This was indeed the first step in creating a “portable” Jewish religion.

The question of the matrilineal principle – when did it start, how and why - occupies a long and complex chapter. The author first deals with the popular belief that it was instituted among the returning exiles from Babylon by Ezra in the middle of the 5th century BCE. He points out that Ezra’s motivation in driving away the non-Judean wives was the original Biblical fear that – like the Canaanites of old – they would corrupt their Judean husbands into idol worship. The impetus for sending away the children of these Judean men by their non-Judean wives actually came from one of them, in his zeal to demonstrate his determination to reform – not because they were “not Jewish”. As for the other half of the matrilineal principle – the status of children of Judean mothers and non-Judean men – this was not even considered, as Judean women who “married out”, like all women in the ancient world, became – along with their children – part of their husband’s tribe and ethnic group. Although the author effectively eliminates Ezra as the originator of the matrilineal principle, in typical fashion, he refuses to completely rule out the possibility. He points out that neither Josephus nor Philo knew anything of the matrilineal principle, and in fact there is no trace of it at all until it suddenly appears “out of the blue” in a Mishna, probably written during the Yavnean period at the end of the first century CE. Cohen provides a number of alternative explanations for it – his two preferred are; that it was influenced by a Roman law which has an almost exact parallel with the Mishanic formulation; his second explanation is that it emerged from a rabbinic concern about the status of the progeny of “mixed species”. In addition the author provides a full account of the later Talmudic attempts to find a source for this Mishna in the Bible.

The author ends the book by describing his training and point of view in the “historical positive” school of Judaism. What this means is that he is not trying to convince anyone of what Jewishness should or should not be today; he is just trying to shed light in some of the darker corners of its beginnings. He does that admirably. show less

A comprehensive analysis of Judaism and its experiences in the Second Temple Period and the transition into the Rabbinic period.

The author begins by establishing definitions and a basic description of the history of the times. He explores the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and their cultural connections and separations, the range of Gentile reactions to Jews, the practices and beliefs of the "religion" of the Jews throughout the period; the community of the people and its show more institutions; the existence and nature of the sects (or lack thereof); text and canon; development of rabbinic Judaism; he concludes with the separation of Judaism and Christianity.

Throughout the author is in conversation with fellow scholars. I appreciated his insistence that Second Temple Judaism (and Gentile paganism, for that matter) were not creedal, based on belief, as Christianity and Islam would be, but orthopraxic in nature. He challenges assessments of the reasons for the separation of Judaism and Christianity and is far more sanguine about the "dominance" of the rabbis in Judaism during the Roman and early Byzantine periods.

It seems at times that the author is a little too overbearing with the reassessments (dare I say deconstruction?) of some previously commonly held views, especially about the relationship between "Judaism" and "Christianity"; it assuredly was a bit more fluid than a stark dichotomy but in the reassessment Jewish people conveniently seem much less specifically anti-Christian. Perhaps meager evidence is evidence in and of itself; perhaps it is only an indication of how much has been lost.

Nevertheless, overall, an important work for understanding the developments within Judaism through the Second Temple Period into the Rabbinic era.

**--galley received as part of early review program show less

A very informative book, well-written and present a survey of one of the more rarely discussed aspect of Roman empire and its relationship with Judaism.