Zionism - What exactly is it?

Wikipedia said:
The revolt established an independent state of Israel over parts of Judea for over two years, but a Roman army of 12 legions with auxiliaries finally crushed it.[2] The Romans then barred Jews from Jerusalem, except to attend Tisha B'Av.
That's odd. So the Jewish homeland was contained entirely in the city of Jerusalem?
I thought it was a bit bigger than one city?

Another odd thing: if the Jews were evicted from the Levant, how hard was it for them to attend Tisha B'Av in Jerusalem? How far did they need to travel, and how many managed to attend, given the distances that must have been involved?
 
That's odd. So the Jewish homeland was contained entirely in the city of Jerusalem?
I thought it was a bit bigger than one city?

Another odd thing: if the Jews were evicted from the Levant, how hard was it for them to attend Tisha B'Av in Jerusalem? How far did they need to travel, and how many managed to attend, given the distances that must have been involved?

The exile is a myth. Magnes Zionist does a good job of paraphrasing the scholarship on the subject

The myth was not invented by the Zionists, although it was greatly used by them, in part, to justify the return of the Jews to their ancestral homeland. For the tacit assumption of the Zionists was that if the Jews had left the land willingly, if they had merely “emigrated” because they found opportunities beckoning in the Diaspora, then they would have betrayed their allegiance to the land, and their return would have been less justified. That is one of the reasons why Zionists argued for years that the Palestinians left Palestine of their own free will – if they were forcibly expelled, then somehow their claim to the land would be stronger. Of course, the putative expulsion by the Romans was not the only claim of the Jewish people to the land – many peoples have been exiled from their lands, and the Zionists were not claiming that all of them had a right to return -- but it dovetailed nicely with the historical view of the wandering Jew that finds no rest outside of his native place from which he was expelled.

The first point to make is that well before the revolt against Rome in 66-70 c.e., there were Jewish communities outside Palestine, most notably in Babylonia and in Egypt, but elsewhere as well. References to the dispersal of the Jewish people throughout the civilized world are found in the book of Esther, Josephus, and Philo. There is no indication that these communities were small, satellite communities.

Second, there is no contemporary evidence – i.e., 1st and 2nd centuries c.e. – that anything like an exile took place. The Romans put down two Jewish revolts in 66-70 c.e. and in 132-135 c.e. According to Josephus, the rebels were killed, and many of the Jews died of hunger. Some prisoners were sent to Rome, and others were sold in Libya. But nowhere does Josephus speak of Jews being taken into exile. As we shall see below, there is much evidence to the contrary. There was always Jewish emigration from the Land of Israel, as the quote above from Baron indicates.

The first mention of the exile of the Jews occurs in remarks attributed to the third century Palestinian rabbi, R. Yohanan that are found in the Babylonian Talmud, a work that received its final recension several centuries later (c. 500 c.e.): “Our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt, and we ourselves exiled from our land” (Gittin, 56a). The editor/s of the Talmud referred this statement to the Roman exile. Similar statements can be found elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud attributing to rabbis living in the Land of Israel the view that the Romans were responsible for the destruction of the House, the burning of the temple, and the exile from the land. But if one examines other Babylonian sources, and most sources from the Land of Israel, the statements most likely refer to the First Temple, and the exile by the Babylonians. There is, after all, something odd in having rabbis living in the Land of Israel bemoaning an exile from the Land of Israel. Yuval summarizes the sources as follows:

“In other words, it seems that the triple expression—destruction of the House, burning of the Temple, exile from the land—originally (in the sources from the Land of Israel) referred to the First Temple and were applied to the Second Temple only in Babylonia.10 In the Tannaitic and early Amoraic sources, Rome is accused only of destroying the Temple, not of exiling the people from their land.11 A broad historical and national outlook, one that viewed the “Exile of Edom” (Rome being identified with the biblical Edom) as a political result of forced expulsion, did not survive from this period. Nor would such a view have been appropriate to the political reality and the conditions of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel, which were certainly very well known to the members of that generation.”

In fact, Chaim Milikowsky, professor and past chairman of the Talmud department at Bar Ilan university, has argued that in 2nd and 3rd century tannaitic sources, the Hebrew term rendered as “exile” has the meaning of political subjugation rather than physically being driven from the land (cited in Yuval, p. 19, n.1) This, by the way, dovetails nicely with the Zionist historiography that emphasizes the loss of political independence, rather the physical removal of the Jews from the Land of Israel. For Zionists were somewhat at a loss to explain how Jewish rabbis could create the Mishnah and subsequently the Talmud of the Land of Israel if there was a mass exile.

This much of Yuval’s essay is uncontroversial and based on widely-accepted historiography.

http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2007/07/no-rivkele-there-wasnt-roman-exile-of.html

original paper is available here

citation:Yuval, Israel Jacob.
The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship
Common Knowledge - Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pp. 16-33

And this is even before we figure out that much, if not all, of the narrative which he refers to does not exist outside the bible or the imagination of Josephus
 
That's odd. So the Jewish homeland was contained entirely in the city of Jerusalem?
I thought it was a bit bigger than one city?

Another odd thing: if the Jews were evicted from the Levant, how hard was it for them to attend Tisha B'Av in Jerusalem? How far did they need to travel, and how many managed to attend, given the distances that must have been involved?

Romans didn't kick every Jew out, they couldn't do that. However, Jerusalem was the center of Jewish society, the countryside was sparsely populated. They just made it so difficult for Jews, the cultural center moved to Babylon.
 
Ah. So the story of Jews being evicted wholesale from Judea is historically inaccurate.

That makes more sense; if it took 12 legions to put down a revolt, surely it would have required hundreds of legions, and great expense, to evict them from Judea alone. I don't think the Empire would have considered such an exercise worthwhile, but after all, the Jews always did get 'special consideration'.
 
What story? No one said that. The diaspora, as it's called, was not a singular event, it was the culmination and result of many incidents of war and oppression. It's well known that Israel was never completely Jew free during or after Roman occupation. History, as usual, is more complex than popular narrative.
 
What story? This story:
Adstar said:
Zionism is the movement for the restoration of the Jewish nation to the lands their ancestors where evicted from by the Roman Empire post 70AD.
Much lke the story I've heard told, about the eviction of Jews from their historical homeland, which I've known for some time is a highly improbable story. The effort required and the cost, even by a superpower of the day, namely Rome, would have been prohibitive.
 
What story? No one said that. The diaspora, as it's called, was not a singular event, it was the culmination and result of many incidents of war and oppression. It's well known that Israel was never completely Jew free during or after Roman occupation. History, as usual, is more complex than popular narrative.

But are we speaking of the Israelites, the Judeans or the Jews? And if the change from paganism to polytheism to monotheism makes no difference to the tribe, why omit conversion to religions after that?

It is generally accepted among modern scholars that the narrative of Israel's history found in the biblical Books of Kings is not an accurate reflection of the religious world of Iron Age Judah and Israel.[67] Contrary to the biblical picture, Israelite monotheism was not a primordial condition, but the end result of a gradual process which began with the normal beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[68]

Israel and Judah inherited the religion of late first-millennium Canaan, and Canaanite religion in turn had its roots in the religion of second-millennium Ugarit.[69] In the 2nd millennium, polytheism was expressed through the concepts of the divine council and the divine family, a single entity with four levels: the chief god and his wife (El (deity) and Asherah); the seventy divine children or "stars of El" (including Baal, Astarte, Anat, probably Resheph, as well as the sun-goddess Shapshu and the moon-god Yerak); the head helper of the divine household, Kothar wa-Hasis; and the servants of the divine household, including the messenger-gods who would later appear as the "angels" of the Hebrew Bible.[70]

In the earliest stage, Yahweh was one of the seventy children of El, each of whom was the patron deity of one of the seventy nations. This is illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint texts of Deuteronomy 32:8–9, in which El, as the head of the divine assembly, gives each member of the divine family a nation of his own, "according to the number of the divine sons": Israel is the portion of Yahweh.[71] The later Masoretic text, evidently uncomfortable with the polytheism expressed by the phrase, altered it to "according to the number of the children of Israel"[72]

Between the eighth to the sixth centuries El became identified with Yahweh, Yahweh-El became the husband of the goddess Asherah, and the other gods and the divine messengers gradually became mere expressions of Yahweh's power.[73] Yahweh is cast in the role of the Divine King ruling over all the other deities, as in Psalm 29:2, where the "sons of God" are called upon to worship Yahweh; and as Ezekiel 8–10 suggests, the Temple itself became Yahweh's palace, populated by those in his retinue.[69]

It is in this period that the earliest clear monotheistic statements appear in the Bible, for example in the apparently seventh-century Deuteronomy 4:35, 4:39, 1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 7:22, 2 Kings 19:15, 19:19 (=Isaiah 37:16, 37:20), and Jeremiah 16:19, 16:20 and the sixth-century portion of Isaiah (43:10–11, 44:6, 44:8, 45:5–7, 45:14, 45:18, 45:21, and 46:9).[74] Because many of the passages involved appear in works associated with either Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through Kings) or in Jeremiah, most recent scholarly treatments have suggested that a Deuteronomistic movement of this period developed the idea of monotheism as a response to the religious issues of the time.[75]

The first factor behind this development involves changes in Israel's social structure. At Ugarit, social identity was strongest at the level of the family: legal documents, for example, were often made between the sons of one family and the sons of another. Ugarit's religion, with its divine family headed by El and Asherah, mirrored this human reality.[76] The same was true in ancient Israel through most of the monarchy – for example, the story of Achan in Joshua 7 suggests an extended family as the major social unit. However, the family lineages went through traumatic changes beginning in the eighth century due to major social stratification, followed by Assyrian incursions. In the seventh and sixth centuries, we begin to see expressions of individual identity (Deuteronomy 26:16; Jeremiah 31:29–30; Ezekiel 18). A culture with a diminished lineage system, deteriorating over a long period from the ninth or eighth century onward, less embedded in traditional family patrimonies, might be more predisposed both to hold the individual accountable for his behavior, and to see an individual deity accountable for the cosmos. In short, the rise of the individual as the basic social unit led to the rise of a single god replacing a divine family.[75]

The second major factor was the rise of the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires. As long as Israel was, from its own perspective, part of a community of similar small nations, it made sense to see the Israelite pantheon on par with the other nations, each one with its own patron god – the picture described with Deuteronomy 32:8–9. The assumption behind this worldview was that each nation was as powerful as its patron god.[77] However, the neo-Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in ca. 722 challenged this, for if the neo-Assyrian empire were so powerful, so must be its god; and conversely, if Israel could be conquered (and later Judah, c. 586), it implied that Yahweh in turn was a minor divinity. The crisis was met by separating the heavenly power and earthly kingdoms. Even though Assyria and Babylon were so powerful, the new monotheistic thinking in Israel reasoned, this did not mean that the god of Israel and Judah was weak. Assyria had not succeeded because of the power of its god Marduk; it was Yahweh who was using Assyria to punish and purify the one nation which Yahweh had chosen

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

And if monotheism became fully formed after the Babylonian exile, how do we even know we are referring to the same people and not some immigrant tribe?
 
Jews were never thrown out of Palestine - the migrated all over the world, even in New Terstament times they came be found as far away as France, living in groups in one area -keeping themselves isolated. It is known that Joseph of Arimethea visited Jews in France (Gaul) before crossing the channel to GB. It was the jews in the USA that pestered the government to provide them with a homeland, and they usurped arabs land for the purpose. The US goverment is so scared of the Jewish Lobby that they always do what the jews want, they can sway votes - big style.
 
They were thrown out, just not as neatly as you would be evicted from your apartment. The net effect on Roman oppression was an exodus from Israel.
 
But are we speaking of the Israelites, the Judeans or the Jews? And if the change from paganism to polytheism to monotheism makes no difference to the tribe, why omit conversion to religions after that?



And if monotheism became fully formed after the Babylonian exile, how do we even know we are referring to the same people and not some immigrant tribe?

Jews. They were unified enough to challenge the Romans in battle, and the Romans weren't exactly amateurs at this.
 
They were thrown out, just not as neatly as you would be evicted from your apartment. The net effect on Roman oppression was an exodus from Israel.

So the roman presence forced them out, or did they go by choice? The latter sounds the most obvious, for whatever reason, nobody forced them out.
 
It's a little of both, when people make life difficult for you, you tend to move. It's like the exodus of educated citizens from Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Romans didn't kick every Jew out, they couldn't do that. However, Jerusalem was the center of Jewish society, the countryside was sparsely populated. They just made it so difficult for Jews, the cultural center moved to Babylon.

Just like it had earlier moved from elsewhere to Canaan. The history of the human race is the history of migration. But in the absence of any archaeological record to back up their assertions, it seems that the history of the Jews is one of chronic self deception. Do the Jews who moved due to the Roman oppression exist anywhere outside the imagination of Josephus? Is there any other record of this exodus?
 
Last edited:
Just like it had earlier moved from elsewhere to Canaan. The history of the human race is the history of migration. But in the absence of any archaeological record to back up their assertions, it seems that the history of the Jews is one of chronic self deception. Do the Jews who moved due to the Roman oppression exist anywhere outside the imagination of Josephus? Is there any other record of this exodus?

Ha. Why did the Jews come to India? Maybe, the earliest arrivals were as traders in 200-300 BCE. They lived PEACEFULLY.

They came about 100 CE. Was it Roman persecution? Please tell me. They lived PEACEFULLY.

Next arrivals were about 300-400 CE. Was it due to xian persecution? Please tell me. They lived PEACEFULLY.

Another wave came in 700-800. Was it due to muslim persecution? Please tell me.

Another wave, known as Bagdadi Jews arrived 1400-1600 CE. Was it muslim persecution? Please tell me. They lived PEACEFULLY.

PS: One of the most beautiful synagogue happens to be in Cochin. They have a copper plaque whereby the Hindu king gave them land for this temple. [I can prove it, so please don't try to contest it].

Helen. You remember her? Raised Cabaret to an art form? She NEVER showed her skin, yet produced sensual dances. Her comments on Censor Board: They have misplaced the scissors.


A POSER:

When did Jews complain of persecution at the hands of Hindus?
 
Last edited:
Ha. Why did the Jews come to India? Maybe, the earliest arrivals were as traders in 200-300 BCE. They lived PEACEFULLY.

They came about 100 CE. Was it Roman persecution? Please tell me. They lived PEACEFULLY.

Next arrivals were about 300-400 CE. Was it due to xian persecution? Please tell me. They lived PEACEFULLY.

Another wave, known as Bagdadi Jews arrived 1400-1600 CE. Was it muslim persecution? Please tell me. They lived PEACEFULLY..

Exactly - you prove my point. So why did 90% of them leave India in the decade after 1947 when they suffered no oppression for almost 2000 years?

Isn't 2000 years long enough to "feel" Indian?
 
Last edited:
Ah. So the story of Jews being evicted wholesale from Judea is historically inaccurate.

That makes more sense; if it took 12 legions to put down a revolt, surely it would have required hundreds of legions, and great expense, to evict them from Judea alone.

Not at all. How many Legions were required to conquer Britain? You give the Romans too little credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain
 
What story? This story:

Much lke the story I've heard told, about the eviction of Jews from their historical homeland, which I've known for some time is a highly improbable story. The effort required and the cost, even by a superpower of the day, namely Rome, would have been prohibitive.

You also give "superpowers of the day" too little credit. Think 1290, England. How many legions did old Longshanks have?
 
You also give "superpowers of the day" too little credit. Think 1290, England. How many legions did old Longshanks have?

Or we could examine the historical record separately from the Bible. How many of the polytheistic Judeans remained in Judea after the "Bar Kokhba revolt"?

The concentration of the biblical literature on the experience of the exiles in Babylon disguises the fact that the great majority of the population remained in Judah, and for them life after the fall of Jerusalem probably went on much as it had before.[44] It may even have improved, as they were rewarded with the land and property of the deportees, much to the anger of the exile community in Babylon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#cite_ref-43

Most of them and they were rewarded with the land and property of those who left
 
Back
Top