So I have been attempting to understand the roots of Judaism. When were the first Jews and how did they see themselves?
I have been reading Shaye JD Cohen’s The Beginning of Jewishness, and he puts together an argument that the concept of a Jew was not distinguishable from the concept of a Judean. As a matter of fact the Greek term for both is exactly the same word. (I see as I write this I should investigate when is was first translated as two different concepts. Latin? German? English?).
This makes sense in an ancient world where most Judeans were either in Judea proper or in Asia Minor, Alexandria, or other large cities of the Hellenistic or early Roman times. There were many groups of people abroad. It was not unusual to see a Cappadocian or a Thracian in cities abroad either. The term referred to where they are from. For many of you this is something you came to realize a long time ago.
But that makes a the next question that much more interesting, I think.
From where do we get the concepts of a Judah, the southern kingdom? I am fairly sure there is no archeological evidence for Judah as a kingdom. We hear reference to a king of Jerusalem, but that does not in any way show that a Judah existed. There was a Iurusalem whose king wrote one of the Armana Letters asking for help from Egypt long before either Israel did exist or Judah is proposed to have existed. I am not sure of any evidence that points to a change in the relationship of the city to its neighbors (domination) or toward the regional powers (independence). Perhaps an single king here or there found no army within striking distance, like Josiah. Or a king decided not to provide assistance to one regional power in its attempts to dominate another regional power (Hezekiah, Babylonia, Egypt). But I do not think a Judah existed prior to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.
IT does seem that a Satrapy of Yehud was set up for the sake of easier administration. Actually it was a sub-Satrapy in that it seemed to report to the larger Satrapy of Ebir-Nari, which meant “beyond the river,” referring to the fact it was beyond the Euphrates. Either way, this may be the first unified government for the Arameans in the southern part of Palestine.
IT also coincides with the first time the word is purported to be used in the Bible, by Ezra. But modern scholarship makes Ezra a Hellenistic writing, long after the Yehud was established by Persia. And that, my friends, brings us back to a language that makes no distinction between a Judean or a Jew.
So what then, is the source for the term Judah

As a matter a fact fragments of the Book Ezra-Nehemiah have been found in the Dead Sea Caves just recently. Since the book is not in tact we do not know how it has changed with regard to the Modern Hebrew Text. Again we just don’t know.
Also recently a fragmented Davaidic Seal was found in the Northern area of Israel, Perhaps indicating evidence that David indeed did exist
I have a pet Idea. I have not researched it. Is the antisemitism exhibited by the Church, and as seen in the Gospels really just a continuation of the rift between the Sadducee and Pharisee. Did the early church deliberately target Pharasees.
Some reasons why
- In the Book of John there is a story of men bringing an adulterss woman to Jesus to be stoned. This would be possibe for a Saducee, a Pharsee woul require two witnesses. for stonning neither withness could know the accused, niether withness could know each other. Question is this possible, therefore the woman could not stoned.
- Traditionaly the Pharasic reponse would be ‘to wait and see’. does he fit the criteria, if not his movement would fade away.
- The Head of the San Hedrin a Romanized Judeans or Saducees as well as a majority of the council. Yet it is only the Pharasees that are blamed.
- since the Saducees were the only group that was threatened by Jesus, Loss of their income running the Temple, doesn’t it make more sense that the Gospels got it wrong, it was the Saducees at odds with Jesus.
- the Helinized Jews would they not become the new church fathers and retain their anomosity
Let me know what you think

I think the anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism as you call it was simply a continuation of the constant power struggle within southern Palestine. I am not sure any “sect” of Judaism was more likely to convert to Christianity.
But again, there were no group more anti(some)Jews and other Jews. Reading some original sources, I found it hard to even read some of the casual hatred of Jews for their closest cousins the Samaritans. And the Maccabees. Early on those guys killed a lot more Judeans than the Macedonians employed by the Syrian rulers, in order to return to their old ways.
I wonder if you ever got around to researching your idea, and what you used to research it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)

