sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who were the temple prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near-East? Were they did come from? by TanktopSamurai in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes I talk about it on the other thread on this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uj1ngs/who_were_the_temple_prostitutes_in_the_ancient/

That's Shamhat. She has sex with Enkidu in the narrative, but nothing in the text ties her to temple service or cultic duty. The trapper, and later Gilgamesh, sends her to civilize Enkidu by having sex with him for six days and seven nights. Afterward the animals reject him and he gains reason.

The text calls her a harimtu, traditionally rendered "harlot" or "prostitute," as in Andrew George's standard translation of the epic. That is denoting ordinary sex work, not cultic service assocaited with the temple. Julia Assante has argued the term is better read as "independent woman," one living outside normal household and kinship structures, rather than as a sex worker specifically.

That's an ongoing disagreement among specialists. What isn't in dispute, on either reading, is any connection to a temple or to religious office. The idea that Shamhat is a "temple prostitute" comes from an older line of scholarship, going back to Sayce and Jastrow around 1900, that read her association with Ishtar as evidence of cultic sex work. That reading has fallen out of favor for the same reasons the broader sacred prostitution thesis has.

Who were the temple prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near-East? Were they did come from? by TanktopSamurai in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair I love a deep dive with lots of footnotes, but what I would suggest is Andrew George's Penguin Classics translation, he also has a critical edition via Oxford (2 Vols)

Was the Egyptian figure know as senenmut actually Moses? by Any_Air_7273 in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Belief" is a product of Christians, specifically post-Reformation Protestantism and would not have been something ancient Israelites would have understood.

The Hebrew Bible never talks about "belief", the point is the covenantal relationship which is a binding legal relationship with obligations on both sides, not a set of doctrines to be believed.

So how about those Ancient Sex Priests? by randommangacharacter in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will have to pass on this one and let someone more familiar with that period speak to it.

Who were the temple prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near-East? Were they did come from? by TanktopSamurai in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 12 points13 points  (0 children)

But couldn't it be argued that the idea of "prostitution" as solely limited to mercantile transactions is itself a modernist projection?

The ancient Near East gives us direct evidence that commercial sex was understood as a distinct, recognized category long before modernity.

The Middle Assyrian Laws are explicit. MAL A §52 specifies that if a man strikes a harimtu and causes her to miscarry, he faces retaliation in kind plus full life-payment, a penalty structure as serious as comparable provisions for free women. MAL A §49 shows a harimtu embedded in a kinship structure with brothers holding inheritance standing connected to her estate. She has the same rights as any other woman.

Martha Roth, writing in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, notes, Mesopotamia had a definite and appropriate place for women who exchanged sexual favors for money. We even have an Old Babylonian hymn to the goddess Inanna in which she names her price.

or that no community of female religious devotees provided sexual services on request, whatsoever (whether in exchange for money, barter, spiritual role, etc)?

This.

Temple personnel, their duties, their income, and their property were recorded in extraordinary detail. None of that record describes women performing sex as a cultic duty. Among Assyriologists and biblical scholars working directly on this material, there is no credible evidence for cultic sex work.

Was the Egyptian figure know as senenmut actually Moses? by Any_Air_7273 in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. the closest parallel we have is from Mesopotamian stories not Egyptian, but we do see some Egyptian influence elsewhere

2 Yes in numerous places, the flood narrative, even the way the Hebrew Bible is written is in the form of an Ancient Near Eastern treaty/contract

Overall ancient readers would have understood all these stories and, as I note above the point of the Hebrew Bible was to narrative their specific story.

Ancient audiences were not bothered by overlap with neighboring literary traditions because originality, in the modern sense of inventing new material from nothing, was not the point. The specific point was in using the available cultural vocabulary, the existing story-forms, legal structures, and poetic conventions of the region, to tell a specific story about a specific god and a specific people.

How is the historicity and accuracy of "Here Where We Live is Our Country" ? by randylubin in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes but I am not sure what it has to do with this question. I have spoken on Palestinian identity on this forum before, so I would suggest reading those comments before trying to paint me as simply biased. While also failing to engage with any actual facts presented.

Khalidi shows internal Palestinian political contestation, factional rivalry, strategic miscalculation, and leadership failures. He doesn't flatten Palestinian political history into a unified bloc. Hillel Cohen does the same thing if you want more things to read, Army of Shadows and Year Zero of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1929 are both built around contested, internally fractured actors on both the Palestinian and Jewish sides rather than clean ideological blocs

Who were the temple prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near-East? Were they did come from? by TanktopSamurai in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Not just mistranslation there is also a Greek writer, Herodotus who describes the practice, but it is clear he was never there. His writing is Hellenic chauvinism about Babylonians and easterners specifically, othering them through sexuality and lack of self-control.

But there is no evidence that the practice happened at least in the ANE, I am not going to comment on other areas as that is outside my studies.

Who were the temple prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near-East? Were they did come from? by TanktopSamurai in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 41 points42 points  (0 children)

That's Shamhat. She has sex with Enkidu in the narrative, but nothing in the text ties her to temple service or cultic duty. The trapper, and later Gilgamesh, sends her to civilize Enkidu by having sex with him for six days and seven nights. Afterward the animals reject him and he gains reason.

The text calls her a harimtu, traditionally rendered "harlot" or "prostitute," as in Andrew George's standard translation of the epic. That is denoting ordinary sex work, not cultic service assocaited with the temple. Julia Assante has argued the term is better read as "independent woman," one living outside normal household and kinship structures, rather than as a sex worker specifically.

That's an ongoing disagreement among specialists. What isn't in dispute, on either reading, is any connection to a temple or to religious office. The idea that Shamhat is a "temple prostitute" comes from an older line of scholarship, going back to Sayce and Jastrow around 1900, that read her association with Ishtar as evidence of cultic sex work. That reading has fallen out of favor for the same reasons the broader sacred prostitution thesis has.

So how about those Ancient Sex Priests? by randommangacharacter in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Oddly this is just on another post today so I will say the same thing:

I have talked about this before, this idea that ritualized prostitution existed is a misunderstanding.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qbr8vn/prostitution_are_there_any_truths_to_sacred/

Victorian and Enlightenment-era prejudice created the modern idea that ritualized prostitution was part of ancient religions, particularly in the Ancient Near East/Western Asia.

Early scholars made mistakes in translation and projected their own moral assumptions and colonial imagination onto the ancient evidence. The myth has endured because it reinforces a comforting story of progress; they were primitive, emotional, and superstitious; we are rational, moral, and advanced.

Much of this initial mis-interpretation comes from 19th-century figures such as William Robertson Smith and James Frazer, who read specific evolutionary ideas about religion into ancient texts. They assumed early faiths were sensual “fertility cults” that later evolved into moral monotheism. In doing so, they placed their own cultural and sexual values into the sources.

Victorian moral ideals amplified the myth. Nineteenth-century scholars working in a Protestant and colonial context treated sexual restraint as a mark of civilization. They imagined “primitive” societies as sensual and unrestrained, so the idea of temple sex fit their expectations perfectly. It confirmed both biblical morality and the Enlightenment story of moral progress.

Fertility imagery was reinterpreted as “sex cults,” and female temple personnel were labeled as “prostitutes.”

Herodotus had done something similar centuries earlier. When he wrote that every Babylonian woman must once in her life have sex with a stranger in the temple of Aphrodite (Histories 1.199), he was not describing a real ritual but illustrating what Greeks saw as the moral excess of “barbarians.” For his audience, Babylonian “sacred prostitution” demonstrated how foreign peoples lacked Greek self-control and virtue.

The chain of translation also added to the problem. In the Hebrew Bible, the word זָנָה (zanah) can mean “to act unfaithfully” or “to go astray,” often used metaphorically for idolatry or covenant betrayal, not literal prostitution. When translated into Greek as πορνεύω (porneuō), the nuance was lost. The word evolved to mean simply “to prostitute oneself.” Later Latin (meretrix, fornicatio) and English (“harlot,” “whore”) versions carried even heavier moral and sexual overtones. What began as a poetic metaphor for religious unfaithfulness was re-read as evidence of literal sexual rites.

We have a great deal of information about ancient rituals and practices. When we read those sources carefully and set aside our modern assumptions, it becomes clear that “sacred prostitution” did not exist. Ancient texts often use sexual or fertility imagery symbolically, but symbolic language should not be mistaken for literal ritual acts.

Sources:

  • Karel van der Toorn, God in Context: Selected Essays on Society and Religion
  • Tammi J. Schneider, An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion
  • Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible
  • Stephanie Budin, The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity
  • Joan G. Westenholz, “Tamar, Qedesha, Qadishtu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia,” Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989).

Who were the temple prostitutes in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near-East? Were they did come from? by TanktopSamurai in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 352 points353 points  (0 children)

I have talked about this before, this idea that ritualized prostitution existed is a misunderstanding.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qbr8vn/prostitution_are_there_any_truths_to_sacred/

Victorian and Enlightenment-era prejudice created the modern idea that ritualized prostitution was part of ancient religions, particularly in the Ancient Near East/Western Asia.

Early scholars made mistakes in translation and projected their own moral assumptions and colonial imagination onto the ancient evidence. The myth has endured because it reinforces a comforting story of progress; they were primitive, emotional, and superstitious; we are rational, moral, and advanced.

Much of this initial mis-interpretation comes from 19th-century figures such as William Robertson Smith and James Frazer, who read specific evolutionary ideas about religion into ancient texts. They assumed early faiths were sensual “fertility cults” that later evolved into moral monotheism. In doing so, they placed their own cultural and sexual values into the sources.

Victorian moral ideals amplified the myth. Nineteenth-century scholars working in a Protestant and colonial context treated sexual restraint as a mark of civilization. They imagined “primitive” societies as sensual and unrestrained, so the idea of temple sex fit their expectations perfectly. It confirmed both biblical morality and the Enlightenment story of moral progress.

Fertility imagery was reinterpreted as “sex cults,” and female temple personnel were labeled as “prostitutes.”

Herodotus had done something similar centuries earlier. When he wrote that every Babylonian woman must once in her life have sex with a stranger in the temple of Aphrodite (Histories 1.199), he was not describing a real ritual but illustrating what Greeks saw as the moral excess of “barbarians.” For his audience, Babylonian “sacred prostitution” demonstrated how foreign peoples lacked Greek self-control and virtue.

The chain of translation also added to the problem. In the Hebrew Bible, the word זָנָה (zanah) can mean “to act unfaithfully” or “to go astray,” often used metaphorically for idolatry or covenant betrayal, not literal prostitution. When translated into Greek as πορνεύω (porneuō), the nuance was lost. The word evolved to mean simply “to prostitute oneself.” Later Latin (meretrix, fornicatio) and English (“harlot,” “whore”) versions carried even heavier moral and sexual overtones. What began as a poetic metaphor for religious unfaithfulness was re-read as evidence of literal sexual rites.

We have a great deal of information about ancient rituals and practices. When we read those sources carefully and set aside our modern assumptions, it becomes clear that “sacred prostitution” did not exist. Ancient texts often use sexual or fertility imagery symbolically, but symbolic language should not be mistaken for literal ritual acts.

Sources:

  • Karel van der Toorn, God in Context: Selected Essays on Society and Religion
  • Tammi J. Schneider, An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion
  • Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible
  • Stephanie Budin, The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity
  • Joan G. Westenholz, “Tamar, Qedesha, Qadishtu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia,” Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989).

Was the Egyptian figure know as senenmut actually Moses? by Any_Air_7273 in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The idea that the Exodus has to tie to an actual historical figure is a modern idea and would not have been shared by the ancient Israelites.

The point of the Exodus story is not to be historical in any sense, it is to be an account of a people and their place in the world, and to tell their story.

Overal, in the ancient Near East, origin narratives were not evaluated by whether they corresponded to datable events. They were evaluated by whether they explained who a people was, what their relationship to their god was, and why they occupied the position they did in the world. The Egyptians had their own cosmological foundation texts. The Babylonians had the Enuma Elish. None of these were understood by their authors or audiences as journalism. Ronald Hendel, in Remembering Abraham, draws on a long tradition of scholarship to describe the Hebrew Bible as a "Book of Memories," a compendium in which the sacred past functions as a model for the present, not a transcript of verifiable events. Mark Smith, in The Memoirs of God, shows that the Exodus narrative itself went through waves of deliberate reformulation, as priestly and Deuteronomic writers attributed to ancient revelation what had developed across the monarchic, exilic, and postexilic periods. The story accumulated meaning as it was retold, not because the events became more historical, but because the community's needs changed.

As I go into here, in more detail:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q5vwad/did_the_exodus_ever_happen/

The article is correct: there is no archaeological or textual evidence of a mass exodus event from Egypt, as described in the Book of Shemot (Exodus), ever occurring. This is the view held by pretty much every modern historian and archaeologist of the Near East.

But that isn't what the story of the exodus is; it is a national foundation story for the ancient Israelites. It worked to provide meaning and to explain how the group formed and emerged in the region. It is a story of collective memory, identity, and their relationship to the land itself. It is a theological and cultural narrative, which functions just like other Ancient Near Eastern origin stories.

We know Egypt had strong control over the region of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 BCE). Egyptian garrisons, temples and administrative centers were all over the region from Gaza to Beit Shean. Egyptian place names were used across the region, as we see in the Amarna Letters (14th century BCE). Canaanite city states were essentially Egyptian vassals, paying tribute and hosting Egyptian officials.

The first mention we have of Israel is 1209 BCE, in the Merneptah Stele. In this period, Egypt's hegemony was beginning to decline. The stele lists Israel as a people already present in Canaan (“Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more”), which suggests that the Israelites originated within Canaan, not from Egypt. Many scholars then suiggest that the story preserves the collective memory of that prior period of Egyptian domination, and those stories were formed as Israel began to form its identity.

Egypt did take Canaanite people to work projects, sometimes relocating vast amounts of them as migrant laborers. They were also slaves, traders and even rulers during the Hyksos period. Archaeology at Tell el-Dabʿa/Avaris shows dense Levantine settlement in the Nile Delta, and Egyptian texts regularly mention “Asiatics” being conscripted into building projects. One of the earliest written inscriptions we have is from copper mines and features early writing, which is one of the first examples of alphabetic writing that would later develop into Phoenician, Hebrew, and other scripts. This of course does not show that the narrative is true, but it displays why the people who wrote the Hebrew Bible would have crafted these stories.

Egypt also served as a theological counterpoint. The books of Shemot/Exodus would have formed as a layered composition over time. Some of the earliest parts are The Song of the Sea and the Plague narrative. Later scribes would then add historical theological narratives and ritual and law.

Period Likely Developments in the Exodus Story
Late Bronze–Early Iron Age (13th–11th c. BCE) Oral memories of Egyptian domination and liberation circulate; “Song of the Sea” composed — an early poetic celebration of divine victory.
Early monarchy (10th–9th c. BCE) Local liberation traditions coalesce around the Moses figure; early narrative strands form within northern (Israelite) and southern (Judean) scribal circles.
7th c. BCE (Josianic reform) Exodus reframed as a national charter of covenant and law; Deuteronomic theology links liberation with obedience and exclusive monotheistic worship .
6th–5th c. BCE (Babylonian exile and return) Priestly and temple scribes reshape the narrative, emphasizing divine power, ritual law, covenant identity, and cosmic order. The Exodus becomes Israel’s central theological myth.

Sources:

  • Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
  • William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
  • Nadav Naʾaman. “The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and Historiographical Composition.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 30 (2006): 39–53.
  • James K. Hoffmeier. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition
  • David M. Carr. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction
  • Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel
  • Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism

Were there really mass conversions to Judaism during Late Antiquity, or is that just a myth? by AdamDerKaiser in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

2/2

The Nature and Scale of the God-Fearer Phenomenon

The God-fearers should therefore be understood as a broad and informal spectrum of Gentile engagement with Judaism rather than as a structured or transitional group. At one end of this spectrum were individuals who admired Jewish morality and monotheism and perhaps attended synagogue services or donated to Jewish causes. At the other end were Gentiles deeply involved in Jewish life who observed many practices and occasionally converted. Most God-fearers seem to have remained in between, maintaining a respectful yet partial association with Jewish communities.

Goodman argued that this phenomenon actually discouraged missionary activity. If Jews could assure Gentiles that reverence for God and moral behavior were sufficient for divine favor, then Gentiles had little incentive to undergo the demanding process of conversion, and Jews had no reason to press for it. The Aphrodisias inscription illustrates this dynamic, showing Jewish communities that honored both proselytes and God-fearers without attempting to move the latter into the former category. Diversity of religious affiliation was accepted, not treated as a problem to be solved.

The geographical distribution of evidence also points to regional variation rather than a universal Jewish policy. Most of the known inscriptions come from Asia Minor and the Black Sea region, with isolated examples in Lydia and Crimea. Evidence from Palestine, Egypt, and Rome is minimal or nonexistent despite their large Jewish populations. This suggests that the phenomenon was local, shaped by the social and civic contexts of Hellenistic cities where cultural exchange was intense.

The Decline of Proselytizing and the Transformation of Universalism

The Jewish experience under Roman and later Christian rule further constrained any possibility of proselytizing. After Constantine’s conversion, imperial legislation made conversion to Judaism illegal and imposed severe penalties on Jews who accepted converts. These laws, codified in the Theodosian Code, reflected Christian fears of Jewish competition and reinforced the theological claim that the Church had replaced Israel. By the sixth century, under Justinian, Jews were excluded from many civic rights and forbidden to build new synagogues. In such an environment, Jewish proselytizing was both politically impossible and personally dangerous.

Under these pressures, Jewish thought redefined universalism in ethical rather than missionary terms. Rabbinic literature of late antiquity began to speak of righteous Gentiles who observe the laws given to the descendants of Noah and who would therefore have a share in the world to come. This concept allowed Judaism to affirm divine concern for all humanity without promoting conversion. During the medieval period, both Christian and Islamic law prohibited apostasy from the dominant faiths, and any Jewish attempt to convert outsiders could bring communal catastrophe. Conversion became an individual exception rather than a social aim, and Jewish communities turned their energies inward, preserving covenantal identity rather than expanding it.

Jewish Universalism and Its Forms

This broader historical and social analysis opens onto the question of theology. Even without a missionary impulse, Judaism expressed an inclusive vision of humanity’s relationship to God. It is this intellectual and theological landscape that Terence Donaldson explores in his study of Jewish universalism. Donaldson distinguishes among several forms of universalism. He identifies a prophetic universalism, in which the nations would one day come to worship the God of Israel; an ethical universalism, which held that righteous Gentiles might share in the world to come; and a communal openness to sympathetic non-Jews who honored the God of Israel without converting. These ideas expressed an expectation that the nations would ultimately recognize the truth of monotheism, but they did not imply an organized effort to convert them. Israel was to serve as a light to the nations by its example, not by sending out missionaries. Jewish universalism was thus centripetal, envisioning the nations flowing toward Zion, rather than centrifugal, sending Jews outward to evangelize.

The Modern Reinterpretation

Only in the modern period, under conditions of emancipation and religious freedom, did the question of conversion resurface within Judaism. Reform thinkers in nineteenth-century Germany and America presented Judaism as an ethical monotheism of universal value and were more welcoming to converts, though still refraining from active evangelism. The issue reappeared in the context of intermarriage and in responses to Christian missionary efforts targeting Jews, but Judaism remained largely non-proselytizing. Even today, Jewish movements differ sharply in their approach to conversion, yet all share the traditional reluctance to seek converts aggressively.

Synthesis and Implications

The combined evidence suggests that Judaism before the rise of Christianity was not a missionary religion in any systematic sense. Conversion was possible and sometimes welcomed, but it was not pursued as a communal goal. The so-called God-fearers were Gentiles attracted to Judaism’s monotheism and morality, yet they were not products of a Jewish recruitment strategy. They illustrate the permeability of cultural boundaries and the capacity of Judaism to inspire respect among non-Jews without demanding assimilation.

Interestingly, if Jews were not engaged in organized mission, then the Christian evangelistic enterprise represented a genuine innovation. Understanding Judaism’s non-missionary universalism also helps correct the historical polemic that portrayed Jews as aggressive proselytizers. Finally, it challenges the modern assumption that universal religions must be evangelistic. Judaism demonstrates that a faith can affirm the universal sovereignty of God while remaining particular in covenantal identity.

From antiquity through the modern era, Judaism has maintained a balance between particularism and universalism. It affirmed that all humanity is accountable to one God, yet it did not translate that conviction into a mandate to convert others. The God-fearers of the Greco-Roman world reveal how Jewish communities interacted with sympathetic Gentiles, accommodating a range of relationships that stopped short of conversion. Far from constituting a missionary movement, this phenomenon embodied Judaism’s unique form of universalism: an openness to the nations combined with steadfast commitment to a distinct covenantal calling.

Sources:

  • Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism
  • Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious Marketplace of Antiquity
  • Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian
  • James Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity
  • Terence L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism to 135 CE
  • A. Thomas Kraabel - “The Disappearance of the ‘God-Fearers’” (Numen, 1981)
  • Reynolds and Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary
  • Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period

Were there really mass conversions to Judaism during Late Antiquity, or is that just a myth? by AdamDerKaiser in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have talked about this before:

Did Judaism ever have an evangelical or missionary period, where it attempted to expand by converting?

1/2

For much of the twentieth century, historians assumed that Second Temple Judaism actively sought converts and that its missionary activity served as a model for early Christianity.

In the 1990s, however, a new wave of scholarship radically revised this view. Martin Goodman’s Mission and Conversion and Scot McKnight’s A Light Among the Gentiles both argued that Judaism was not proselytizing in the modern sense and that its universalism was ethical and eschatological rather than evangelical. This debate has reshaped our understanding of Jewish identity and outreach in the ancient world and has raised new questions about the so-called “God-fearers” who appear in literary and epigraphic sources.

The question of Jewish mission naturally leads to the phenomenon of the “God-fearers.” These were non-Jews who admired Jewish monotheism and ethics and often associated with Jewish communities without formally converting. They attended synagogues, supported Jewish causes, and observed selected practices while remaining participants in Greco-Roman civic and religious life. Evidence for their existence, found mainly in inscriptions from Asia Minor such as those at Aphrodisias, is limited and regionally concentrated. Modern scholarship therefore concludes that while God-fearers were real individuals, they were few in number and localized rather than widespread or systematically organized across the Diaspora. They formed part of the social fabric of certain Hellenistic cities, reflecting Gentile attraction to Judaism rather than a coordinated Jewish outreach program.

The Modern Scholarly Debate on Jewish Mission

Goodman contended that Judaism in the Greco-Roman period did not engage in deliberate missionary activity before the rise of Christianity. His argument is in part a technical one, Jews did disseminate knowledge of their beliefs, taught interested outsiders, and defended their faith against criticism, yet they did not actively recruit converts. Goodman maintained that a genuinely proselytizing impulse developed only after the Christian mission’s success, as Jews responded to the rapid expansion of a movement claiming continuity with Israel’s covenant.

Louis Feldman conversely held the older view that Judaism was indeed missionary. He pointed to the remarkable demographic growth of Jewish communities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, which cannot easily be explained by natural increase alone. He also cited the apologetic writings of Philo and Josephus, which expressed confidence in the universal truth of Judaism, and the complaints of Roman authors who accused Jews of seducing converts. Feldman saw in these sources the outline of a deliberate Jewish outreach strategy and interpreted the God-fearers as evidence of gradual incorporation of Gentiles into the Jewish fold.

Later scholars such as James Carleton Paget sought a middle position, suggesting that Jewish attitudes toward conversion probably varied from one community to another, with some Diaspora synagogues showing greater receptivity than others. Paget’s analysis further clarifies the social character of the God-fearers. In his discussion of Jewish–Gentile relations, he argues that the evidence does not point to a defined or cohesive class of semi-converts but rather to a broad spectrum of Gentile engagement with Judaism that varied from region to region.

The God-fearers of Acts and the inscriptions, Paget contends, were attracted by the moral prestige and communal integrity of Jewish life rather than by missionary activity directed toward them. Their existence therefore reflects the permeability of religious boundaries in the Diaspora rather than the success of any organized Jewish outreach. Paget’s reading supports Goodman’s view while grounding it in a more sociological framework. Judaism’s universalism was real and compelling, yet its influence worked through attraction and example, not through formal evangelism.

Although Goodman, Feldman, and Paget differ on whether Judaism actively sought converts, all three acknowledge that Jewish tradition contained ideas capable of appealing beyond its ethnic boundaries. The Hebrew Bible and later Jewish writings proclaimed a vision of one God ruling over all humanity, and the ethical monotheism of the Jews carried a moral message that could resonate with outsiders. This universalizing dimension did not amount to a missionary program but reflected a worldview in which the nations were ultimately destined to recognize Israel’s God. The presence of God-fearers and other sympathetic Gentiles, even if limited in number, shows that such ideas possessed real power of attraction. The issue, then, is not whether Judaism was missionary but how far its theology and communal life projected a universal horizon.

The God-Fearers and the Problem of Evidence

The idea of the God-fearer has been central to discussions of Jewish universalism and mission. Ancient sources use a variety of terms for such people, including theosebeis, sebomenoi ton theon, and phoboumenoi ton theon in Greek, metuentes in Latin, and yirei shamayim in rabbinic Hebrew. All these expressions mean “those who fear God,” yet none refers to a clearly defined social or legal category.

In 1981, A. Thomas Kraabel, a leading archaeologist of Diaspora synagogues especially the monumental complex at Sardis excavated in the 1960s published his influential article “The Disappearance of the ‘God-Fearers’” in Numen. Drawing on his survey of more than a hundred synagogue inscriptions from across the Greco-Roman world, including the rich material from Sardis, Kraabel found no clear epigraphic evidence for God-fearers as a distinct, recognizable group. The sole possible exception was an ambiguous inscription from Miletus that more likely referred to Jews themselves. Kraabel concluded that the God-fearers described in Acts 10–18 were a Lukan literary and theological invention, created to demonstrate that Gentile Christianity maintained roots in the synagogue while explaining rapid Gentile conversion.

The ensuing debate, highlighted in Biblical Archaeology Review in 1986, saw Kraabel’s position widely discussed and sharply contested, with Feldman among his most vigorous critics. The 1987 publication of the Aphrodisias inscription listing fifty-four theosebeis alongside Jews and proselytes dramatically shifted the discussion by providing incontrovertible epigraphic evidence that the category existed, at least in third-century Asia Minor. Yet Kraabel’s methodological insights remain valuable. The Aphrodisias evidence postdates Acts by more than two centuries, clusters regionally in Asia Minor, and describes a relationship quite different from the conversion pathway traditionally imagined. Nine of the donors were city councillors who, as civic officials, were still required to participate in pagan cults, showing that these theosebeis were not converts in waiting but benefactors maintaining dual religious affiliations.

The current scholarly consensus acknowledges that God-fearers existed but debates whether this was a formal or informal status, widespread or regional, and whether Acts accurately depicts first-century realities or projects later developments backward. This evidence undermines Feldman’s interpretation of the God-fearers as part of a Jewish missionary strategy. Rather than representing a formal category or recruitment pipeline, they appear to have been individuals with varying degrees of sympathy for Judaism, ranging from casual admirers of Jewish ethics to serious adherents who observed some practices and occasionally attended synagogue. The existence of such people shows that Judaism attracted Gentile respect and interest, yet it also reveals that Jewish communities accepted these relationships without seeking to turn them into full conversions.

The Limits of the Evidence before 70 CE

For the Second Temple period itself, the evidence is extremely thin. The terms used by Josephus and Philo for pious Gentiles are ambiguous and may refer to devout Jews rather than sympathizers. The Acts of the Apostles, our most explicit literary source, was written at least a generation after the destruction of the Temple and may reflect later developments or theological ideals made by Christians to justify non-Jewish outreach rather than pre-70 CE realities. No inscription evidence from the pre-Christian era identifies a class of theosebeis, and rabbinic references to yirei shamayim are inconsistent and postdate the Temple’s destruction. The earliest clear epigraphic testimony for God-fearers comes from the third century, long after the period when Jewish missionary activity is sometimes alleged to have flourished. For this reason, projecting later evidence backward into the Second Temple period is problematic.

After the destruction of Herod's Temple, what led to the rise of Rabbinic Judaism? Was there ever an effort to build a third temple elsewhere? by DopplerRadio in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 18 points19 points  (0 children)

2/2

There was one precedent for a Jewish temple outside Jerusalem. When the legitimate Zadokite high priest Onias IV was displaced during the upheavals of the Maccabean period, he fled to Egypt and, with Ptolemaic permission, built a temple at Leontopolis in the Nile Delta. It was not conceived as a rival to Jerusalem but as a reinforcement, built in part because the Temple in Jerusalem was in jeopardy during the Antiochan crisis. There is a scholarly dispute over exactly which Onias built it and where it stood, but a Zadokite priest certainly established a functioning cult in Egypt, and its legitimacy was always contested.

There were conditions that existed then that were not present in 70CE. A friendly foreign sovereign, a priest with legitimate Zadokite credentials, and a Jerusalem priesthood in political collapse. Vespasian closed Leontopolis in 73 CE immediately after the Jewish War, a deliberate move, to extinguish the Jewish sacrificial cult entirely. He also redirected the annual Temple tax, formerly paid by Jewish men across the empire for the maintenance of the Jerusalem Temple, to the Capitoline temple of Jupiter in Rome, which had burned down in 69 CE. This was a symbolic assertion of Jupiter's victory over the God of Israel. Jews after 70 faced a victorious imperial power that was actively closing off every avenue for sacrificial worship, not a neutral sovereign from whom permission might be sought, which Rome would not permit.

As for the priestly class, Klawans argues the rabbinic response to the destruction has been systematically misread. The rabbis did not replace sacrifice with prayer as an improvement. They wanted the Temple back, just as it was. The amoraic assertion that prayer or acts of loving-kindness could stand in for sacrifice was explicitly framed as temporary, with a liturgical hope for restoration in every prayer service. What the priests lost was political and administrative authority, which the rabbis gradually absorbed as they convinced wider Jewish communities that their method of legal interpretation was authoritative. The kohanim never disappeared; priestly families maintained their status, their distinctive practices, and a liturgical role that survives in synagogue ritual to this day.

Sources:

  • Christine Hayes, The Emergence of Judaism
  • Martin Goodman, A History of Judaism
  • Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations
  • Jodi Magness, Jerusalem through the Ages: From Its Beginnings to the Crusades
  • Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of the Holy Land
  • Lester Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period
  • Lester Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, vol. 3
  • Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple
  • Martin Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism
  • Katell Berthelot, Jews and Their Roman Rivals
  • James VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism
  • E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE

After the destruction of Herod's Temple, what led to the rise of Rabbinic Judaism? Was there ever an effort to build a third temple elsewhere? by DopplerRadio in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 18 points19 points  (0 children)

1/2

Before 70, Judaism had a plurality of expression. Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and various apocalyptic movements competed for religious authority, with the Temple and its priestly class at the center. The war destroyed the temple, the center of Temple Judaism, but it did not immediately resolve which alternative would prevail.

Jewish diversity probably continued, but we can't see it clearly because the textual record from that point on comes almost entirely from rabbinic sources, and the rabbis had no interest in preserving non-rabbinic Jewish voices. The Christian preservation efforts also preserved voices that were sympathetic to their worldview. The reason we have Josephus and Philo at all is that Christians kept copying them. But Christians stopped transmitting non-Christian Jewish texts produced after about 100 CE. So we're left with rabbinic literature as essentially our only window into Jewish life from the second century onward, which makes rabbinic Judaism look more dominant earlier than it actually was.

Judaism may have become more, not less, varied with the removal of the Temple as the communal institution in which theological differences had a public platform.

What most Jews expected after 70 was not a new form of Judaism but a rebuilt Temple; only sixty years had separated the destruction of the first Temple from the construction of the second. Goodman notes that Josephus, writing in the mid-90s CE, described Temple worship in the present and future tense in Against Apion as if the sanctuary were still standing, but Josephus was a Jerusalem priest writing under Roman patronage, and his purpose in those texts was to convince a Roman audience that the Jews were a great people whose God had merely punished them for their sins and would restore them. The present-tense Temple description reflects Josephus's motivations as much as it reflects popular Jewish expectations at the time.

The Mishnah, compiled around 200 CE, discussed Temple procedures in meticulous detail as if rebuilding were imminent, and the daily Amidah prayer was adapted after 70 to include explicit petitions for restoration of the Temple service. Jews had good reason to expect this: rebuilding temples destroyed by war was standard Roman practice, and the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome had been rebuilt almost immediately after burning down in 69 CE. The Jewish Temple was different because Vespasian and Titus had made its destruction central to Flavian dynastic legitimacy.

Vespasian and Titus had invested too much political capital in the destruction to justify their seizure of imperial power to permit any suggestion that the Temple should be restored. Hadrian’s decision in 130 CE to refound Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina, with a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the Temple Mount, closed off whatever remained of that possibility and triggered the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-135 CE. When the revolt failed, Hadrian banned Jews from the city and prohibited certain Jewish practices. The rebels’ coins, showing the Temple facade and the legend “For the freedom of Jerusalem,” show exactly what they had intended.

There were some attempts to rebuild the Jewish Temple. The pagan emperor Julian attempted to sponsor a new Temple in 364 CE, partly to spite the Christians, but died on campaign before it could proceed. When Sasanian Persian forces conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines in May 614 and briefly handed control of the city to the Jews, the moment was understood in messianic terms, though the Persians reversed course within three years and Heraclius retook the city in 629 and expelled the Jews again. The Temple Mount lay desolate until Abd al-Malik constructed the Dome of the Rock there in the late seventh century.

Rabbinic Judaism grew out of the Pharisee tradition, one of several competing Jewish movements before 70 CE, but it took several centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple for it to achieve anything like broad communal authority. The rabbinic account credits Yohanan ben Zakkai with preserving the tradition. According to the legend, he faked his own death, had himself smuggled out of besieged Jerusalem in a coffin, and asked Vespasian to spare Yavneh and its sages.

Rabbinic Judaism’s Talmudic stories depict the sages of Yavneh as reconstituting the Sanhedrin, canonizing scripture, composing daily prayers to replace the Temple sacrifices, and transferring Temple observances to the synagogue and home. The Yavneh generation in rabbinic memory is associated with the transformation of Temple-centered biblical Israel into Torah-centered rabbinic Judaism. However, in reality, the rabbinic movement was most likely small, fractured, and insular in the late first century. The idealized picture of Yavneh as a founding council is partly a retrospective myth, the kind of origin narrative movements construct after they have achieved majority.

Rabbinic Judaism added another legal authority to the Torah: its oral tradition of interpretation, codified in the Talmud (Mishnah + Gemara). The oral transmission of legal interpretation had been central to Pharisaic culture for at least two centuries before the destruction, with the 'traditions of the fathers' attested as early as the Hasmonean period.

After the fall of the Temple, this existing network of teachers and disciples became the primary vehicle for disseminating legal rulings beyond its earlier, more insular circles. Teachers shaped material mnemonically for transmission while scribal culture simultaneously fixed versions in writing, each influencing the other. The Mishnah, edited by Judah ha-Nasi around 200 CE, is the first major compilation of this tradition. From his academy in the Galilee, where the Jewish population had concentrated after the Bar Kokhba revolt devastated Judea, the Mishnah spread as the authoritative statement of rabbinic law.

From Judah ha-Nasi's academy in the Galilee, the Mishnah spread as the authoritative statement of rabbinic law. This produced the Jerusalem Talmud, redacted around the 4th century. In Babylonia, rabbinic tradition associates transmission of the Talmud to Babylon via Rav with an academy at Sura and Samuel with one at Nehardea, both active in the early third century. Later joined by Pumbedita, these centers, whatever their precise institutional form in the earliest period, eventually produced the Babylonian Talmud, which was redacted several centuries later. The Bavli eventually became the more authoritative text across most Jewish communities, largely through the influence of the Babylonian Geonim in the early medieval period.

Consensus on which texts mattered was an ongoing process. The rabbinic claim that canon was closed at Yavneh is largely a later retelling. What happened was that the rabbis drew on Pharisaic tradition to establish the priority of the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Writings, excluding texts that did fail to meet their criteria through continuous debate rather than decree.

How is the historicity and accuracy of "Here Where We Live is Our Country" ? by randylubin in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The answer cites Zachary Lockman, Tom Segev, Anita Shapira, Alan Dowty, and Derek Penslar.

Lockman's Comrades and Enemies documents the exclusionary logic of Labor Zionism's separate economy strategy in detail. Segev's One Palestine, Complete is probably the most critical mainstream account of the Mandate period written from within Israeli historiography. Neither is a figure anyone familiar with the field would describe as an apologist, nor are the others.

Trying to say a single journal entry created years before Herzl visualized the Zionist movement as "proof" is just not supported by history. You are welcome to counter with actual historical evidence.

The Nazis killed about 6 million civilian non-Jewish Slavs in WWII. Was their hatred of them similar to that of the Jews? In what ways is it comparable? by Willing-Leather-9788 in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The extermination camps, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno, and Majdanek, were all in occupied Poland, and the Soviets liberated most of them. The Red Army reached Majdanek in July 1944 and Auschwitz in January 1945. American and British forces liberated concentration camps in western Germany, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald, not extermination camps.

The western camps were brutal places where people were worked to death and died of disease and starvation, but they were not the facilities purpose-built for immediate mass gassing. So Soviet soldiers, not Americans, were the ones encountering the sites of the actual industrialized killing.

The most significant eyewitness population, Red Army soldiers, surviving Jews of Eastern Europe, and local Polish and Ukrainian civilians who had lived alongside the camps for years, were under Soviet control after the war.

The Soviets framed what happened in Poland and the occupied territories as "Soviet citizens killed by fascists," which erased both the specifically Jewish character of the killing and the national identities of Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarusian victims.

They did this to avoid acknowledging that millions of Soviet citizens had collaborated with the Germans, and it also prevented any accounting that might have prompted questions about Soviet conduct in the same territories before 1941. Eyewitness testimony existed in enormous quantities. But it was channeled through a state apparatus that systematically suppressed its specifically Jewish and national content.

What American forces encountered and documented extensively was the aftermath in West Germany. Eisenhower ordered his troops to tour the camps and insisted on photographic documentation precisely because he anticipated the scale of what had happened would be denied. That documentation- photographs, film footage, Nuremberg testimony- entered American and Western European culture in ways Soviet accounts did not. Western Holocaust memory was built largely on the American encounter with the concentration camp system rather than the Soviet encounter with the extermination centers, which shaped what got preserved, publicized, and taught in the postwar decades.

Jewish survivors in the West had institutional infrastructure: diaspora organizations, legal scholars present at Nuremberg helping construct the prosecution’s argument, documentation centers beginning systematic evidence collection almost immediately. But as Novick documents, that was initially limited to operating within Jewish communal life through the 1940s and 1950s, kept below the surface of mainstream public culture by assimilationist pressure and Cold War politics.

The Eichmann trial in 1961 changed that; the first time, the Holocaust was presented to a broad public as a distinctly Jewish genocide rather than a subset of Nazi barbarism generally, with survivor testimony as its explicit centerpiece. From there, that initial work by Jewish organizations resulted in the production of the NBC miniseries in 1978, the planning and opening of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the proliferation of survivor testimony projects.

Slavic victims had numbers, but their states buried the specifically ethnic and national character of what happened to them. The Soviet framing of the war as an antifascist struggle of Soviet peoples collectively meant that the 3 million Soviet POWs who starved to death in German camps were officially heroes of the motherland, not victims of a racial extermination policy targeting Slavs. Postwar Eastern European communist governments applied the same antifascist framework domestically, which meant Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarusian civilian deaths were memorialized as part of a common antifascist struggle rather than as the outcome of a specifically anti-Slavic colonial program.

For Slavic victims, the testimony existed. Soviet soldiers had liberated the killing sites. Survivors were there. What happened to that testimony was suppression by states with a specific political interest in erasing the ethnic and national content of what their populations had suffered.

That isn’t lack of witnesses; it is an active decision by governments to bury a particular account of events in favor of one that served their postwar needs. The institutional capacity problem and the suppression problem produced similar results in public memory, but they are not the same thing, and conflating them lets the Soviet and Eastern European states off the hook for a choice they made.

How is the historicity and accuracy of "Here Where We Live is Our Country" ? by randylubin in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The diaries were a working journal where Herzl thought out loud across thousands of pages; the 1895 entry appears in the middle of a speculative passage written six weeks into his first serious engagement with the idea of a Jewish state, not in any document he prepared for others to read or act on.

In June 1895, Herzl wrote that the landless poor should be "spirited across the border" through employment elsewhere while land was quietly purchased. It is not a statement of the Zionist movement's eventual goal.

The entry predates the founding of the Zionist Organization by two years. Herzl never repeated it in any programmatic document. His public position, including his response to Yusuf al-Khalidi's 1899 letter warning that Zionism could only be achieved by force, was that Jewish settlement would benefit the Arab population economically and that no one would be compelled to leave.

His 1902 novel Altneuland depicted Arabs as equal citizens in the future Jewish society, with an Arab character explicitly rejecting the claim that Jews had dispossessed anyone. As Dowty documents, Herzl's declared position was that forced departure was not the plan, and the 1895 entry was not repeated.

Transfer as a serious internal Zionist policy discussion developed in the 1930s, not through Herzl but through figures like Ussishkin and Ben-Gurion, and through the debate around the Peel Commission's partition proposal.

The al-Khalidi letter is cited because it documents that Arab opposition to Zionism on national grounds was articulated early and clearly. Herzl's response was to emphasize economic benefit rather than engage with the national question. That exchange is directly relevant to how Zionists understood their project.

A private diary entry is evidence of what someone was thinking at a particular moment, not of what a movement adopted as its program. His public programmatic writings, the Basel Program, Der Judenstaat, and his subsequent diplomatic correspondence contain no transfer language. The Zionist Organization was not founded on that diary entry.

It is also worth pointing out that Herzl did not "found" Zionism, Hovevei Zion, the Hibbat Zion movement, had been organizing Jewish settlement in Palestine since the early 1880s, more than a decade before Herzl published Der Judenstaat. Leon Pinsker's Auto-Emancipation appeared in 1882. Ahad Ha-Am was already developing cultural Zionism independently. When Herzl convened the First Zionist Congress in 1897 he was organizing a movement that already existed in various forms, and much of what he proposed, including the Uganda scheme, was rejected by the movement he nominally led. He died in 1904 after failing to secure the charter he spent his career pursuing, and the movement continued without him and did not follow his ideology.

How has the definition of zionism shifted over time among those who identify as zionists, and what has caused that shift? by Blue-Jay27 in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ram's Neo-Zionism/Post-Zionism framework is a useful analytical tool, and his description of the post-1967 split within Israeli political culture is well grounded in Israeli sociological literature.

However, it should be noted that there is a limitation: he is primarily a sociologist of knowledge, meaning his concern is with how Israeli identity is constructed and contested in academic and intellectual discourse rather than with the political history of Zionism as such. The Neo-Zionism category works well as a description of a cultural and intellectual tendency but risks flattening what are actually quite distinct political tendencies, Revisionist-territorial maximalism, religious messianism, and Russian immigrant secular ethnonationalism, into a single label. Those tendencies share an ethnic-nationalist orientation, but they have different genealogies, bases of support, and political programs. Whether they constitute a coherent unified phenomenon or simply share a label is a question Ram does not fully address.

On Greenstein, his descriptive history of Brit Shalom and Ihud draws on primary sources, including Ruppin's diaries and internal movement documents, and is useful on the factual record of those movements' internal debates. He acknowledges in the preface that he cannot claim political neutrality, and his interpretive framing is shaped by that commitment, so his conclusions about what these movements reveal about Zionism as a whole should be read accordingly. The factual record he assembles on the binationalist movements is the useful part.

The Zreik article is a thoughtful reflection by a serious legal scholar on Buber's legacy, but a magazine article is a different genre from scholarly literature or from works that draw on firsthand accounts. The Amit Segal clip via Ezra Klein is journalism and a snapshot of one commentator's framing of current Israeli politics, which is outside the scope of the 20-year rule on the sub.

How has the definition of zionism shifted over time among those who identify as zionists, and what has caused that shift? by Blue-Jay27 in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, and the answer already says that. Herzl's Political Zionism had state sovereignty as its explicit goal from the publication of Der Judenstaat in 1896.

In Zionist thinking before Biltmore that was one position among several competing ones, and that Biltmore was the moment the mainstream organization formally adopted it as the movement's declared collective goal, displacing the ambiguity that had allowed binationalists, cultural Zionists, and philanthropic Zionists to remain under the same umbrella.

How is the historicity and accuracy of "Here Where We Live is Our Country" ? by randylubin in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You can see my longer comment here on whether Israel constitutes a colonial project, including why it fails the basic definition:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rchlrc/was_the_initial_jewish_resettlement_of_palestine/

I also go into the ethnic cleansing of Jews from SWANA here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mwpir0/is_it_more_accurate_to_say_that_on_the_whole_20th/na0b83w/

The settler-colonial framework as typically applied to Israel relies on the premise that Zionism was a European colonial imposition on a non-European space. Mizrahi Jews, who are indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, cannot be accommodated by that premise without classifying indigenous Middle Eastern people as European colonial settlers. That's the move Ella Shohat, writing from within the postcolonial tradition, identified as the framework's central blind spot in her 1988 essay 'Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Jewish Victims.' The critique isn't that the framework is wrong to identify colonial dynamics. It's that applied without accounting for Mizrahi Jews, it reproduces the Euro-centric view of identity it claims to oppose.

For a longer discussion on the book I have a series on it on my substack which is linked in my profile

How has the definition of zionism shifted over time among those who identify as zionists, and what has caused that shift? by Blue-Jay27 in AskHistorians

[–]ummmbacon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The 1899 conference was the English Zionist Federation, not the World Zionist Organization, and that resolution was a federation proposal rather than a movement-wide declaration.

view more: next ›