(Moved from the Ask a Theologian thread)
For clarity's sake: the Holocaust wasn't being discussed (not by me anyway), but rather the section in bold. As you can see it is claimed that 'most historians still agree' to the authenticity of the Diaspora, as a result of 'the Jews' being taken out of Palestine in large numbers to create the Diaspora.
I'm inclined to disagree. Most historians don't even bother with the Jewish diaspora. For obvious reasons: it can hardly be claimed to be an 'uncontroversial' issue. On the contrary, it is a very controversial issue. So, the question is: is there any truth to the claim held by both Orthodox Jewry and Zionists that the Jews have been taken out of Palestine in large numbers to create the diaspora?
It seems to me only a number of events can be taken into account:
- the Assyrian 8th century BCE conquest of Palestine (first mention of deportation, which was an Assyrian practice to reduce unrest in conquered lands)
- the Neobabylonian 6th century BCE conquest, leading to the well-known Babylonian exile; this indeed created a Jewish community in Babylon, which only partailly returned after the ban was lifted under Persian rule
- the Roman annexation of the lands ruled by Herod, a client-king, and the subsequent revolts, which were eventually repressed. Possibly a key event, as it included the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the change of name of the province from Judaea to Palestina and the similar change of name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, entry of which was forbidden to Jews for several decades until the ban was lifted
- the Byzantine 7th century reconquest from Persia, shortly before
- the Muslim-Arab conquest; contrary to the above assertion there are no records of "the Jews in Palestine were indeed slaughtered and converted to Islam en masse"; besides the obvious contradiction between between being slaughtered and being converted en masse, this runs contrary to both Islamic law and practice at the time. Both Christians and Jews were considered 'people of the book'; there was a religious tax on them. Since there initially was no tax on Muslims, there is indeed evidence of a conversion to Islam en masse. Deportations: none.
- the Crusades and subsequent reconquest by Arab Muslims: there is evidence of slaughter of both Jews and (Eastern) Christians upon the conquest of Jerusalem. No deportations reported
- the Ottoman conquest seems a bit late in history to account for starting a diaspora, but should be named nonetheless.
So, we have repeated conquests and we have the diaspora. Both are uncontested; but are they inextricably linked?
By 330 CE there were Jewish communities all around the Roman empire, from Hadrian's wall to Morocco, and as far as Tanais and Babylon. And the expansion of Judaism didn't stop there either: contrary to practice today Judaism practized active conversion - and very succesfully until the spread of Christianity started overtaking. When Muhammad started preaching, there were Jewish communities in Mecca, Yemen and Ethiopia.
So, in conclusion, I'd suggest that yes, deportations played their part in spreading Judaism. But the spread of Judaism until the end of the Middle Ages can't possibly be attributed to deportations alone: the vast majority of must be is the result of active conversion.
It should ofcourse be mentioned that deportations continued, starting in 1492 with the establishment of the kingdom of Spain. Jews were expelled from Spain, Portugal, England etc and again this led to a further spread of Judaism.
You may note I consistently use Judaism, not 'the Jews'. There's a difference: Judaism is obviously a religion. 'The Jews' has attained antisemitic as well as Zionist connotations. In fact Zionism arose as a result of 19th century nationalism: one of its key concepts is the supposed continuous existence of a Jewish people throughout history. It would seem that this denies a key aspect of the spread of Judaism: its early very active proselytism. It seems rather obvious one cannot 'convert' to a people.
For clarity's sake: the Holocaust wasn't being discussed (not by me anyway), but rather the section in bold. As you can see it is claimed that 'most historians still agree' to the authenticity of the Diaspora, as a result of 'the Jews' being taken out of Palestine in large numbers to create the Diaspora.
I'm inclined to disagree. Most historians don't even bother with the Jewish diaspora. For obvious reasons: it can hardly be claimed to be an 'uncontroversial' issue. On the contrary, it is a very controversial issue. So, the question is: is there any truth to the claim held by both Orthodox Jewry and Zionists that the Jews have been taken out of Palestine in large numbers to create the diaspora?
It seems to me only a number of events can be taken into account:
- the Assyrian 8th century BCE conquest of Palestine (first mention of deportation, which was an Assyrian practice to reduce unrest in conquered lands)
- the Neobabylonian 6th century BCE conquest, leading to the well-known Babylonian exile; this indeed created a Jewish community in Babylon, which only partailly returned after the ban was lifted under Persian rule
- the Roman annexation of the lands ruled by Herod, a client-king, and the subsequent revolts, which were eventually repressed. Possibly a key event, as it included the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the change of name of the province from Judaea to Palestina and the similar change of name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, entry of which was forbidden to Jews for several decades until the ban was lifted
- the Byzantine 7th century reconquest from Persia, shortly before
- the Muslim-Arab conquest; contrary to the above assertion there are no records of "the Jews in Palestine were indeed slaughtered and converted to Islam en masse"; besides the obvious contradiction between between being slaughtered and being converted en masse, this runs contrary to both Islamic law and practice at the time. Both Christians and Jews were considered 'people of the book'; there was a religious tax on them. Since there initially was no tax on Muslims, there is indeed evidence of a conversion to Islam en masse. Deportations: none.
- the Crusades and subsequent reconquest by Arab Muslims: there is evidence of slaughter of both Jews and (Eastern) Christians upon the conquest of Jerusalem. No deportations reported
- the Ottoman conquest seems a bit late in history to account for starting a diaspora, but should be named nonetheless.
So, we have repeated conquests and we have the diaspora. Both are uncontested; but are they inextricably linked?
By 330 CE there were Jewish communities all around the Roman empire, from Hadrian's wall to Morocco, and as far as Tanais and Babylon. And the expansion of Judaism didn't stop there either: contrary to practice today Judaism practized active conversion - and very succesfully until the spread of Christianity started overtaking. When Muhammad started preaching, there were Jewish communities in Mecca, Yemen and Ethiopia.
So, in conclusion, I'd suggest that yes, deportations played their part in spreading Judaism. But the spread of Judaism until the end of the Middle Ages can't possibly be attributed to deportations alone: the vast majority of must be is the result of active conversion.
It should ofcourse be mentioned that deportations continued, starting in 1492 with the establishment of the kingdom of Spain. Jews were expelled from Spain, Portugal, England etc and again this led to a further spread of Judaism.
You may note I consistently use Judaism, not 'the Jews'. There's a difference: Judaism is obviously a religion. 'The Jews' has attained antisemitic as well as Zionist connotations. In fact Zionism arose as a result of 19th century nationalism: one of its key concepts is the supposed continuous existence of a Jewish people throughout history. It would seem that this denies a key aspect of the spread of Judaism: its early very active proselytism. It seems rather obvious one cannot 'convert' to a people.
