The Invention of a Jewish Theory

The New York Times recently published a review of the new book, “The Invention of the Jewish People,” written by Tel Aviv University professor Shlomo Sand. The book debunks the myth that modern-day Jews are descended directly from Jews expelled from Israel after the destruction of the second temple by asserting that most Jews owe their heritage to mass conversions. Sand also asserts that current Palestinians are descended from Jewish farmers. I find this theory to be significant, even if Sand’s approach is problematic.

If it’s true that “modern Jews owe their ancestry as much to converts from the first millennium and early Middle Ages as to the Jews of antiquity,” then the contemporary relationship between Jews and converts needs to be radically restructured. Converts to Judaism are forced to go through many layers of rejection and examination before the actual mikvah immersion that emphasize conforming to a specific Jewish doctrine. The fact that this process of conversion is relatively recent in the history of the Jewish people further illustrates, to me, its inequity and irrelevance to contemporary Jewish identity. (I highly recommend the Fifty Percenters blog which movingly and articulately discusses the all-too-typical rejection of converts and the unfairness of the conversion process.) Because it throws our treatment of conversion into question, I find Sand’s work highly pertinent.

Unfortunately, Sand chooses to hinge his argument on a theory that has been thoroughly and consistently refuted by modern scholarship. He writes that the Khazars, a Turkic nation, converted en masse to Judaism in the eigth century. Both genetic and historical, textual evidence point to a very different reading of history. I say “unfortunately” because Sand’s analysis, if not his foundation, is commendable and, I would go so far to say, valuable. Not having read the book, it strikes me that Sand is targeting what I would call the myth of bloodline: that the maternal blood descent that counts towards a halakhic Jewish identity has remained untarnished since the days of the Holy Land, interrupted only by the occasional thrice-rejected Beit Din-subjected convert. While the Khazar theory has been disproved, it is true that the history of the Jewish people includes numerous conversions across wide geographic areas. (As the New York Times article points out, one must only look at the dark skin of some Mediterranean Jews, and the blonde hair of Jews from Eastern Europe, to realize that the Jewish people have considerably intermingled with their Diaspora neighbors.)

I am also skeptical of Sand’s political agenda. It may be of scientific or intellectual interest to ruminate on the shared ancestry of current-day Palestinians and Israelis, but I think this has little relevance for the situation at hand. Perhaps I am indulging my idealistic side, but in my opinion this information should not change Israelis’ opinions of the conflict or their treatment of Palestinians. (I use “Israelis’ opinions” in this case because I feel it is safe to say the book is primarily directed at an Israeli/Jewish audience.) Rather, Israelis should alter their perception and treatment of Palestinians based on compassion and a common understanding of humanity, not because a loophole was suddenly discovered in the supposed ancestral separation that has arguably been supporting the current conflict. If anything, this upholds the idea of bloodline and ancestry reigning supreme, something it would appear Sand is attempting to discredit, and this weakens his commentary on conversion and the fallacy of the immaculate bloodline theory. It would be better if Sand used his analysis as a springboard for a proposal to do away with the idea of bloodline altogether, and instead called for Jews to embrace Others and Other Jews regardless of spiritual or genetic background. At least, that is what I call for.

- Leah

Advertisement