Talk:Jews

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

When talking about the Jewish groups you forgot to mention the Yemenite Jews. 75.172.95.172 (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Race (euphemism Ethnos) again

I suggested we replace the haggard meme about the earliest Jews being an 'ethno-religious' community formed during the 2nd millennium BC be replaced by 'religious' because the concept of ethnicity that far back is deeply problematical. The Bible is rife with intermarriage, exogamous relations across peoples, and at the same time, in the priestly recensions culminating in Ezra-Nehemiah, the later strictures against intermarriage are retrodated awkwardly. In the 13-12th centuries we know of an Israel, as a locus and seed, one of several groups in the Transjordan dialect span of tribes, and they only emerge in narrative focus for the distinctive emphasis on adherence to a YHWH, a primarily religious definition, not an ethnic denominator (if the Israelites were in large part Canaanites, as recent historiography now affirms, and the priestly recensions take 'Canaanites' to be ethnically different, 'foreigners', one sees the issue clearly). The latter enters in force in the proscriptions against marrying foreigners issued by the priestly class that recast the oral traditions to accord with later laws.

scholarship has continued to 'assume the essentially ethnic nature of ancient Israel, primarily because the fundamental statement of Israelite ethnic identity,. the patriarchal narratives, is thought to reflect very ancient circumstances. But the assumptions that the pentateuchal sources are very early has been strongly challenged, beginning especially with the efforts of J. Van Seters abnd H.H., Schmidt in the mid-seventies.' (Kenton L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel:Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible, Penn State University Press ISBN 978-1-575-06516-8, 1998 p.12.)

In short, if we speak of the late second millennium, we must do so in terms of what archaeological, philological, historical and sociological evidence might tell us about what lies behind the emergence of an Israelitic 'ethos', and not retroject ideas that framed that period according to the ideological concerns of the priestly cast that wrote up the past traditions in terms of their obsession with 'ethnic' purity. Ezra and Nehemiah are the fathers of race theory, after all, but the ancient communities of Israel were highly 'ethnically' heterogeneous, distinguished in their earliest known phases by devotion to a particular god. At the conclusion of his study (he accepts an early dating for Deborah's song, which has been challenged in recent decades)

it seems to me very likely that the song presumes an ethnic context and that the origins of Israelite ethnicity should be assigned to a date no later than the ninth century B.C.Ep.321.

If 900-800 BCE is, in just one scholarly view, the point of departure, we cannot retrodate ethnicity as if it were a fact to the late Bronze Age,four centuries earlier, as the text insisted on writing. Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I second this, Judaism is not a race or ethnicity, it’s a religion, this isn’t under dispute. Needs correction Bismark94 (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"This isn't under dispute" is a strange comment to interject into a dispute. Largoplazo (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That last quote also pertains to just the "origins" of Israelite ethnicity, not Jewish ethnic and/or religious identity, per se, with the latter being particularly informed by the theological reformulations of the exilic and post-exilic periods. The article itself notes that the codification of Jewish identity only took place in around 200 CE. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect first sentence

First sentence says: "Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group, nation or ethnos native to the Levant, originating from the ancient Israelites and Hebrews" But anyone can convert to Judaism and become a jew, as many have, those would not be native to the Levant or originate from the ancient Israelite's. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Being ethnically Jewish is not the same as being religiously Jewish. As an ethnoreligious group, Judaism and Jewishness are tied together, but not all Jews are Jewish and not all people who believe in Judaism are ethnically Jewish. This article is about the ethnoreligious group called "Jews," not the religion of Judaism and its practitioners. Non-Jewish converts of Judaism are not native to the Levant because they have their own ethnic group; they aren't ethnically Jewish, and not the focus of the article. PersusjCP (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, but rather one that is typically passed down from generation to generation within the Jewish community. Although Judaism allows for conversions, Jewish identity is a construct that encompasses cultural, historical, and social elements rooted in the heritage of ancient Israelites and Hebrews. Jews maintain connections to ancestral traditions and a shared history, including the historical link to the Levant. The Eurocentric view that establishes a strict separation between concepts of religion, ethnicity, language, and other identity elements is not applicable to all cultures. In many societies, the components of history, culture, language, religion, and ancestry do not exist in isolation but are deeply intertwined in people's perception of identity. It is important to keep this in mind when discussing Jewish, Arab, and other identities.

Some intriguing questions: What is the true meaning of being native to a region, and what criteria define that nativeness? In the context of Jewish identity, what does it mean to be 'native to the Levant'? How does analyzing the concepts of 'nativeness' and 'origin' as social constructs helps in our understanding of Jewish identity? Mawer10 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 What makes your restructuring of the introductory paragraph better than the previous one, excluding the phrase "native to the Levant"? Why were the terms "ethnoreligious group" and "nation" pushed down? The first two descriptions (following Judaism and being born into the religion) aren't even obligatory to consider someone as Jewish. Why was ancestry placed after "in the broader sense"? Isn't "the broader sense" a better description to appear in the first line? Why place "ancient Jewish peoples" as an intermediary between the connection of ancient Hebrews and modern Jews? Why are "peoplehood, nation, and community" in quotation marks? Are you implying that these concepts are imagined in the case of Jews? Mawer10 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I followed the structure of Britannica, a tertiary source, which presents the simple sense, and then the broader sense. The phrase on 'being born into the religion' is saying exactly what you say - that religious practice is not necessary ... that wording comes from Krausz and Tulea, and has a longer explanation in the accompanying ref. These options are listed in an X, Y or Z format, so it is not implied that any are the case, simply that they can be the case. The third part is the broader sense, also mirrors the Britannica framing, as does the "ancient Jewish peoples" part. There may be other tertiary sources that present these ideas in a different way that would be worth considering. "peoplehood, nation, and community" is in quotation marks because it is a direct quotation from the cited source, which was misrepresented before. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your version of the introduction describes being Jewish as primarily following a religion, and then states that being Jewish is also somewhat an ethnicity and that ancestry also determines who is Jewish, somewhat contradicting the initial statement. This becomes confusing due to the introduction not explicitly mentioning that not all Jews adhere to Judaism. And the format "Jews are followers of Judaism OR an ethnicity" places two main aspects of Jewish identity on unequal terms, in my view. Starting the introduction with "Jews are an ethnoreligious group" equally captures both aspects of Jewishness. Although Britannica is a reliable source, is there any basis for assuming the existence of a 'simple sense' and a 'broader sense'? After all, Jews consider ancestry very important in determining who is Jewish, and converts can be seen as second-class Jews. A better use of the Britannica source would be: "Jews are a worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish people, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Bible," followed by mentioning that the traditional religion of Jews is Judaism, but not all Jews follow the religion. This is more cohesive and coherent. The use of quotation marks could be seen as scare quotes, and other sources mention that Jewish ethnicity, nationhood, and religion are strongly interconnected without using quotes. So, is the use of quotation marks really justified? Mawer10 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how an X or Y statement implies any form of hierarchy. + The quotation is clearly a quotation. Scare quotes bracket sarcastic remarks or saucy words, not lengthy phrases. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This article isn't about modern Jews; it's about all Jews: ancient, medieval, modern, you name it. While Britannica confines itself to trying to define "what a Jew is," this article has a broader scope. The use of "ancient Jewish peoples" as an intermediary between the ancient Hebrews and modern Jews isn't really necessary when changing the wording to something like "Jews are a people who originated from ancient Israelites and Hebrews in the Levant." Much more straight to the point. Mawer10 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This is misleading. The correct description is something like "Jews are either people who follow Judaism, people who descend from followers of Judaism, or both." The phrase "originated from ancient Israelites and Hebrews in the Levant" only relates with certainty to the religion, not necessarily to the people themselves. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Originated" and "descended" aren't sinonyms, even though they're connected ideas. "Originated" means where something started. When we say "Jews originated from ancient Israelites and Hebrews" we're talking about when the Jewish identity began. This shows that being Jewish goes back to those old groups, starting from a long time ago. "Descended" is about family history. To say that "Jews are descended from ancient Israelites and Hebrews" means that today's Jews are connected to those old groups as family. Something like a family tree that goes back in time. Mawer10 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"The correct description," you are implying that my outline for the description is incorrect. What specific point is wrong? My original point is that Iskandar323's introduction is somewhat confusing. Mawer10 (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of descent vs origination, there are potentially some interesting distinctions to be made. I imagine that Britannica separates "ancient Jewish peoples" and "Hebrews/Israelites", because those are two quite separate ethnic and cultural corpuses. Two thousand years ago there were established Jewish communities across the Near East, e.g. the thriving community in Alexandria. However, these communities that emerged in the post-Exilic were just as if not more distinct from the ancient Israelites before them as Jewish communities today are from them. The ancient Israelites were by most estimations Yahwist and only on the threshold of monotheism, with a cultic religious structure focused on ritual sacrifice within temples. That early religion was then almost entirely theologically reoriented after the Babylonian exile, and again in the Roman period. Today, most of the core pillars upon which ancient Israelite religion stood are absent from modern Judaism, aside from among the modern revivalists that wish for a return to the past. So while it might be reasonable to speak of 'descent' from ancient Jewish communities, the language of 'origination' might be more pertinent when speaking of the bridge between ancient Hebrews/Israelites and ancient Jewish peoples. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the opening sentence of the lede back to its original version. As highlighted by several editors earlier, this article focuses on the Jewish people, who are an ethno-religious group primarily associated with the religion of Judaism. It's important to note that while Judaism is the traditional religion of Jews, not all Jews practice it, as mentioned by multiple editors previously. This primary definition should come first. The inclusion of the term 'ancient Jewish peoples' as an intermediate population link is totally unnecessary in this context (if the origin of Jews can be traced back to the ancient Israelites through the ancient Jews, then it can be stated directly that Jews have originated from the ancient Israelites). Also, as Mawer10 points out, the use of 'originated' is more concise here, and allows to include converts as well. Tombah (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The phrase native to the Levant is unsourced so it has simply been removed. Until we can prove all Jews originate from the Levant, it is simply untrue. JJNito197 (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "originating from the ancient Israelites[12][13][14] and Hebrews[15][16][17] of historical Israel and Judah." is also untrue per opening post. Many Jews are converted, their origin does not fit in this sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my friend, but the argument you're presenting seems to veer into the realm of inaccuracies. When it comes to converts to Judaism, their situation is not unlike that of immigrants integrating into a new country; it often results in intermarriage within the core population. Consider the scenario of modern Egyptians with contributions from historical Arabic immigration or modern Greeks with contributions from Slavic immigrants. These factors don't in any way diminish their connection to their ancient predecessors. Just as modern Greeks are a continuation of ancient Greeks and modern Egyptians can trace their origins back to ancient Egyptians, the same principle applies to Jews. Yes, even if there are converts. Tombah (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)