Sand's Thesis Challenges Jewish Origins and Roman Expulsion

Israel's Foundational Myths: No Exodus or Roman Expulsion

Did Rome really expel Jews from Aaaa? Did they leave Egypt en masse? Do Jews from Kiev and Marrakech share a common origin? Critical historiography has answered no to all three questions for decades, citing names, dates, and etymologies. The topic remains contentious: what some view as academic revisionism, others perceive as a direct attack on the legitimacy of the State of Israel.

The most cited reference is Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, author of "The Invention of the Jewish People." His thesis argues that much of the Israeli foundational narrative—the Exodus, the Roman expulsion, and the common origin—are later constructions rather than historical facts. It is a controversial stance, yet it holds significant sway among those skeptical of the official account.

Was There a Roman Expulsion of the Jews?

The central argument is that such an expulsion never occurred. Romans did not deport entire populations, Sand suggests, because it was too costly. After the revolt in 70 AD and Bar Kokhba's rebellion in 135 AD, Rome forbade Jews from settling in Jerusalem and its surroundings but did not depopulate the region. Many died in combat, and others emigrated after their lands were destroyed, while a considerable Jewish population remained.

Some add an inconvenient detail to the official narrative: centuries later, in 351, a new Jewish revolt led by Isaac of Sepphoris against Emperor Constantius II was recorded. It is difficult to rebel in a land from which you supposedly had been expelled two centuries earlier.

The Khazar Thesis and Ashkenazi Origins

The argument relies on etymology. In Hebrew, Ashkenaz designates Central Europe—today's Germany and Poland—and Sepharad, Iberia, meaning Spain and Portugal. According to this reading, Ashkenazim descend from the Khazars of the Caucasus, a kingdom that converted to Judaism. The corollary: Jews from Kiev and Marrakech would have as little in common as a Spanish Catholic and an Irish one.

Demographic weight does not ease the tension. Figures cited in the debate place Ashkenazi Jews at 70% worldwide and 50% in present-day Israel. Thus, the question of origins is also a primary political issue.

Herzl, Balfour, and Opposing German Rabbis

Another chapter concerns Zionism. When Herzl sought to organize the first Zionist congress in Munich, he reportedly faced opposition from 78 of the 80 most prominent German rabbis, who believed no religion should have a homeland. The idea that Jews should "return" to Palestine originated with British figures like Lord Shaftesbury rather than Jewish ones, and the slogan "a land without people for a people without land" is attributed to this same sphere. In this version, Lord Balfour is remembered for promoting anti-Jewish immigration laws in Britain.

Did the Exodus and Kingdoms of David and Solomon Exist?

Archaeology enters the scene with equally uncomfortable conclusions for the biblical narrative. According to these interpretations, there is no trace of the Exodus or the kingdoms of David and Solomon, and the Bible is read as mythical text rather than historical chronicle. Sand summarizes this with an image: the diaspora does not descend from a single trunk but from distinct populations converted to Judaism in different places and times.

From Supposed Coexistence to Modern Conflict

Against the notion of millennia-old conflict between Jews and Jovenlandeses, another school emphasizes that rivalry is recent and that high degrees of coexistence and shared enemies existed for centuries. The Spanish case enriches the picture: the 1492 expulsion pushed many Sephardic Jews toward North Africa, and some argue that part of the Peninsula's Jews were actually Berber converts. The definitive rupture came with the Zionist project and the creation of Israel in 1948, trinc the unilateral declaration of independence and war with neighboring countries.

Opposing voices are not lacking: those defending Israel as a Western shield against a hostile neighborhood, or those interpreting the conflict through religious and apocalyptic lenses. Each framework carries its own data and discards inconvenient ones. The full discussion, including details of revolts and conversions, spans far more pages than this summary.

With these elements, one might expect a serene historiographical debate. Instead, there is another trench, with archaeology on one side and sacred texts on the other.

In the end, even etymology pulls at the thread.