Talk:Judaism

Judaism = religion of the Jews

Regarding this edit, reverted by me and restored by Ewawer, I consider the prior version to be superior. I can't fully understand the reason for the change, since Ewawer didn't explain it. Judaism is unquestionably the religion of the Jewish people, even if not all of them practice it. Please discuss here so we can avoid a revert war. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that traditionally and generally Judaism is a religion practiced by the Jewish people. However, there are some Jews, unquestioningly halachically Jewish, who are not practising Jews. Some may even be actively anti-religious. There are even people who were born halachically Jewish, and convert to, say, Christianity, and would still be regarded halachically as a member of the Jewish people. Perhaps the point wouldn't operate in the opposite direction, but who knows. The point is that Judaism is a religion, and should stand and be discussed on that basis, separely from the ethnic/peoplehood basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewawer (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your argument really goes to the point, Ewawer. Among other things, I'm quite certain that Jews who convert to Christianity are not considered halakhically Jewish. Among other things, they forfeit their right of return to the State of Israel when they make such a conversion. Further, although there are many Jews who are halakhically, ethnically and culturally Jewish who do not practice their religion, and who may be actively anti-religious, I don't see how this makes it any less true to call Judaism the religion of the Jewish people. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as English is the language of the English people, Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. Some Jews may not practice Judaism, just as some Englishmen and -women may not speak English. As a general statement, Steven is right. The older language was clearer. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the analogy with English and Englishmen is applicable. However, I think though I've made my point, its not worth pursuing because both points are valid. --Ewawer (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all major secondary sources on Jewish history or theology would agree, judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. this proposition does not mean that all Jews are religious. In fact, the foundational text of Judaism (the Bible) makes it very clear that lots of Jews regularly abandon Judaism. From one perspective, the whole drama of the Tanakh is the constant courting, abandonment, and reconciliation of the Jewish people and God as the central narrative of Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Judaism originates

Judaism originates from the hebrew tribe Juda. Other Hebrew tribes have had religions that variates from Juda tribes beliefs largely or some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand Jewish history and the history of Judaism. Read Shaye JD Cohen's books on the history of the emergence of "the Jews." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have read. Hebrews originates from north-mesopotamia.

ASEOR2 (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but I think the article as is, is extremely accurate and hope it stays that way. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jealous

i was wandering about this sentence, is it a mistake or does it meamn something else?(the word jealous)

"the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, jealous, transcendent God"

If it means what it looks like i dont think it should be here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1icemage1 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain quote

I admit that this is just a personal opinion and implies no suggested edit to the article. But, in reference to Twain's claim that the Jew perdures, "exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age," it seems to me that the desire of many Jews to call attention to the grand (and disproportionate) accomplishments of their race is indeed a sign of decay and infermity of age. The authors of the Bible by contrast devote much of their energies to detailing the weaknesses and faults of the Children of Israel (yes, I now the exceptions). They even structured much of the Bible around the faults of our heroes - Moses sinned and could not enter the land of Canaan. David sinned and the rest of his life was cursed. The stories of Jacob's and Joseph's successes coincide with their learning humility. In the Bible, our ancestors praised God. Today we praise ourselves. I am not sure this change is something to be proud of. I am often critical of people who use talk pages as soapboxes and hope you will forgive my putting in my two cents here. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain quote

A well known quote by Mark Twain was just added to the "Jewish demographics" section. The quote contains little to no information on Judaism and seems to me that it would be better placed at Jew or a related article. Comments? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

etymology

User:Kaz added an etymology, without providing any sources or explanations. I know of no reliable sources for th eetymology Kaz provided, but if there are any it is certainly a fringe view. Jewish historians and English etymologists do not dispute that the word Judaism derives from the Hebrew name, Judah. I have provided a citation from Shaye Cohen, a leading historian of the Jews and Judaism, and from the online OED, a leading authority on English etymology. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why European POV should win over linguistics. The etymology of Yahadut was cited by Rabbi Yitzchok Sufrin of London's Lubavitch House in a lecture in April 2006, so I presume it is hardly a "Fringe" view perhaps anyone who doubts should take up the matter with an orthodox Rabbi or at least a Hebrew linguist? Yahadut (יהדות) indicates the establishment of oneness or unity and is a reference to Monotheism. It is supposed to be a pun on the word יחיד -we should remember that the word "Judaism" does not actually exist in Hebrew, if it did it would be יהודהות which simply does not work. Perhaps it is not appropriate to mention יהדות in the opening sentence at all but better to insert an etymology section explaining the differences?Kaz 02:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What next, Gematriya? Slrubenstein | Talk 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its a pity that regardless of the potential flaw in the etymology suggested, the intelligent request for an etymology discussion section in keeping with the pattern on many of the articles on Wikipedia was met with such a strange response.82.6.29.26 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Monotheism

The article is a bit gung-ho in describing Judaism as "always fiercely monotheistic" - while this is true of mature Judaism, it is definitely worth mentioning that this was clearly not always true of the historical Israel. Quite apart from scholarly input which rather steps on this idea, if this was true then the prophets would have had nothing to complain about. If the majority of the population was worshipping other Gods, then in what meaningful sense was "Israel" montheistic? The most that can be said is that those who wrote and compiled the texts were monotheistic Cruci (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Dearest friends!

Just now I wanted to add info about Messianic Judaism to chapter Judaism of Wikipedia, the famous on-line encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

But one man removed my text and wrote: Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) m (94,101 bytes) (Christian view of Judaism, view that Jews are inauthentic) (Messianic Judaism is not considered Judaism by Jews or Christians)

Then I added my info again and again Malik Shabazz removed text and wrote: Messianic Judaism, which is not considered Judaism.

I don't understand why do someone must to consider Messianic Judaism is Judaism? Are international documents which prohibit us to write there is Messianic Judaism?

Here is my text (below).

Shalom- Vlad

Messianic Judaism

Messianic judaism is international movement of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Yeshua (Jesus). There are hundreds Messianic Jewish congregations and synagogues in the world.

"Messianic Judaism is a movement of Jewish congregations and congregation-like groupings committed to Yeshua the Messiah that embrace the covenantal responsibility of Jewish life and identity rooted in Torah, expressed in tradition, renewed and applied in the context of the New Covenant." - From the statement affirmed by the Delegates to the 23rd Annual UMJC Conference on July 31, 2002" http://www.umjc.net/content/blogsection/3/58/

"...the Messianic synagogue movement, a movement committed to our Jewish heritage, traditions, people and life."

"As Messianic Jews, then, we have accepted Yeshua as the Messiah and have accepted G-d's provision of atonement through him. We acknowledge him as the one who fulfilled our prophets' predictions and who rose from the dead, a fact concerning which history bears eloquent testimony. This historical evidence brought Orthodox Jewish scholar, Pinhas Lapide, to acknowledge (Time, May 7, 1979, pp. 88f; cf. The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective): "his Ressurrection was a Jewish affair...he is a dead Jew revived by the will of God." http://menorahministries.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladislav1968 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed to death on this talk page. Have a look at the archive. A clear consensus has been reached that information about Messianic Judaism belongs at that page, not here. Although Malik was the first to notice and revert your edits, I can assure you that there are plenty of other editors who will do the same. This is obviously a WP:DEADHORSE. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote at your Talk page, the article about Messianic Judaism says that "Jews of all denominations and many Christians do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism". Since there is a consensus view outside Wikipedia that Messianic Judaism is not Judaism, it doesn't belong in this article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

JudaismWiki--A New Website for All Things Jewish

Schreiber Publishing introduces JudaismWiki, a new website inspired by Wikipedia with an emphasis on Jewish topics. JudaismWiki serves as a source of information on Jewish subjects, as well as a community portal linking Jews around the world. The website can be edited and improved upon by anyone, from anywhere across the globe. With your help, JudaismWiki can become an even more valuable resource for Jews internationally.

To visit the website, click here: http://judaismwiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

208.176.89.53 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Influence of Judaism

"Jewish history and doctrines have influenced other religions such as Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith."

This line states an opinion as fact. Islam is considered to be a return to the true message of Abraham. This may be the case for the other two faiths mentioned, but I don't know. The line should either be changed to 'It is believed that..." or something else to indicate that it is a disputed opinion.

A similar debate is noted in the article itself: "Yet some scholars advocating for Zoroaster's influence claim credit for that religion having influenced Judaism. Judaism, however, asserts that there are no other religions -- there are only Jews and non-Jewish gentiles."

Evidence from the Qur'an that this is a tenet of Islam: "Abraham was neither a "Jew" nor a "Christian", but was one who turned away from all that is false, having surrendered himself unto God; and he was not of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him." Chapter Al-Imran, verse 67 —Preceding unsigned comment added by C3young (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. In response I have two comments. First, the two claims are not mutually exclusive. An analogy: Zoroastrianism for example influenced Judaism, ebven though Jews see Judaism as a response to the covenant between Abraham and God, renewed by Moses at Sinai and in the desert. Second, there is a matter of semantics. Jews use Jewery and Judaism to refer to the tradition that begins with Abraham, although the word derives from the word Judah, which was the dominant kingdom during the Hellenistic period. That said, Jews acknowledge that Abraham was the father of other nations besides the Israelite or Jewish nation. So Jewish belief is complex on this issue: Jews consider themselves alone to be the principle heirs of Abraham's covenant with God, but also recognize for example that Arabs are heirs to another covenant between Abraham and God ... in short, I think that your point is valid and minimaly it should be clear that this is what Jews believe. But I think that what jews believe (or what sacred Jewish texts claim) is more complicated than this and perhaps others can suggest ways ti express the nuances more clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discusses before. I think the article is fine, even though I personally beleive Zoroastrianism has a bigger part to play. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Jews so intolerant of other faiths? Appreciating that this page is under vandal attack, I must ask since someone - Slrubenstein - undid a very minor edit (a single word) where I inserted that Judaism influenced my own religion - Brahmoism. I do not claim that Judaism is influenced *by* Brahmoism in any way, but wanted to acknowledge that a great old religion Judaism influenced the development of a relatively new World religion - even if in a small way. I specified in the title to my edit the similarities we perceive in the first 5 Maimonindes principles to our own God. Our founder Ram Mohan Roy studied Judaism and knew the Hebrew language. I hope that some people here will read our story Brahmo to see if there is any influence. Ronosen (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how tolerance of other faiths is an issue. A claim was made - that Brahmoism was also influenced by Judaism - and no evidence was provided. That there are similarities between two religions does not prove that one influenced the other. Only now do you say that Ram Mohan Roy studies Judaism - I did not know that. It is still not quite the same thing as saying he was influenced by Judaism. Please consult our WP:NOR policy. If you have a reliable and verifiable source (see WP:RS and WP:V that states that Brahmoism was influenced by Judaism, by all means put it back in. The influence of Judaism on Christianity is self-evident and widely known; Muhammed speaks highly of Moses in the Koran or at least the Hadit. Please understand that Brahmoism is not as well-known and my saying this is a sign neither of intolerance nor disdain. I just think NOR demands a reliable and verifiabl source that explicitly states that Brahmoism was influenced by Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Jewish and Christian Prophets and their stories are mentioned in the Quran and the ahadith, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Ishmael, Issac, and more. This does not necessarily imply influence. The Islamic view is that all of these prophets came with the same message as Muhammad, but their teachings were partially lost and distorted over time. According to the OED, the verb influence means "to affect the condition of, to have an effect on." According to the Islamic viewpoint, Judaism had no effect on the message of Islam. The basic message from God was unchanging and was revealed multiple times out of need. Ok, I've made my case and I will let it rest. :) C3young (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the claim that Judaism influenced Islam is just one view, among others, and not "the truth." And it is a view that ought to be traced to a reliable and verifiable source. I hope whoever put this into the article can provide the source. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronosen, my replies are embedded in yours because so much of what you say makes no sense to me:

Dear Mr.Slrubenstein. Your point about NOR and verifiable sources is well taken.

This makes sense; thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk

Accordingly I am providing an official Government of India biography of Ram Mohan Roy from the Press & Information Ministry of India which claims that Roy studied Judaism (in addition to other religions). The URL is http://pib.nic.in/feature/feyr2002/fmay2002/f020520021.html . I do not know if you will recognise this because this same government for many years did not recognise the State (country) of Israel.

This does not make sense. Why does it mater whether India did or did not recognize Israel? Is there any place in our WP:V or WP:RS policy that states that a source must recognize Israel for it to be reliable or verifiable? I do not understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course this only states that Roy "studied" Judaism and is not conclusive proof that Brahmoism was influenced by Judaism.

Then you do not have a source that Judaism influenced Brahmoism. Then how is this source relevant? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

However, we find significant similarities between the Brahmo Dharma beej of 1850 and some tenets of Judaism such as Maimonides.

I already said, that two religions are similar does not mean that one influenced the othe. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You will appreciate that these issues are unproveable and matters of faith and I do not doubt yours.

Wikipedia is unconcerned with faith or proof. You either have a verifiable source for a given view, or you do not. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I leave it up to you to do the right thing.

The only right thing at issue is compliance with Wikipedia policy.

Brahmos are highly unlikely to claim that they are Jews (of any kind) or distort / vandalise your religion/faith.

Irrelevant, so what? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My Brahmo religion specifically prohibits reviling or disparaging other faiths whilst emphasising strengthening the bonds between *men* of different faiths.

Relevant to the article on Brahmoism, not to the point at hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally have not known many Jews (Judaists) as there are so few in India, I was lucky to have a learned tutor - his name was Ezra - he had a PhD and attended synagogue and I learnt many things from him besides Mathematics.

Editor's personal feelings or experiences are not really relevant. My views are bnot relevant. Your views are not relevant. Please read our WP:NOR and WP:V policies. What matters is not what you or I know but whether a notable view can be traced to a verifiable source. I do not understand why you say this. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect your wishes to scrutinise all the other faiths which claim to have been influenced by Judaism. Sincerely. Ronosen (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess, but I do not ask you to respect my wishes and you do not have to respect my wishes, this is irrelevant. Both of us have to respct Wikipedia policies. This is the only issue I raies. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear User SL.Rubenstein. I must apologise on behalf of my (enthusiastic) young co-religionist Ronosen who has been troubling you on this page. Whereas what he says may be true it is almost unproveable and hence not suitable for inclusion here and is on the lines of http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Abraham.htm which shall corrupt both our religions. My rebuke to him was almost on the lines of your detailed rebuttal when he approached me. With your permission, we would like to get past this conversation. Many thanks and our apology. Yvantanguy (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Add link to Judaism page

Please add a Link to the page JUDAISM under general links:

JudaismWiki.com - the source for everything Jewish [1]

Thanks

Morry Schreiber Website Administrator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkizedek (talk • contribs) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Boyrin

This is a request for comments concerning the section "Distinction between Jews and Judaism". A single scholar is being used to present an interesting, but certainly not widely known or accepted, opinion about Jewish identity. This is especially egregious in an important article such as Judaism. Comments?38.117.213.19 (talk)

I think the basic view supported by the Boyarin quote - that Jewish history extands past the development of Western concepts of "nation," "race" and "religion" and that Judaism and the Jews do not easily fall into any of these categories - is widely accepted by Jewish historians. There is a considerable amount of writing on the debates among Jews at the time of the Enlightenment as to how to characterize themselves in Western terms like nation or religion. The case of Napolean's Sanhedrin is a classic case. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Vague/Unclear Wording

"...In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million people—41 percent in Israel and 59 in the diaspora.[3]"

Suggested Revision: "In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million people--41 percent of this population residing in Israel, and the remaining 59 percent throughout the diaspora."

Spydre (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Spydre, I have taken your suggestion and applied the idea to my previous edit. Your phrasing wasn't perfect either, but I have improved that sentence borrowing from you. Thanks a lot (And I mean it). Marcus2 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

judaism has "clung" to a few principles?

In the opening, it says that Judaism has "clung" to a few principles. There is something about the word "clung" that seems inappropriate. "Clung" suggests desperation or something. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Framed0000 (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about "clung." Also, this is a claim that I think only Orthodox and other more traditional Jews would make. I think most critical Bible scholars, including scholars within the Conservaive and Reform movements, would argue that the Israelites did not, or did not always, have these views of God, and that they developed over time. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there would be wide consensus that while Jews may not have always practiced the same rituals, Judaism has always clung to certain principles, including monotheism and social justice (tikkun olam). — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: On re-reading this, I see the first editor's point is about the connotations of the word "clung". Maybe "Judaism has clung adhered to to a number of religious principles"? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. This only raises the question of when "Judaism" began. If you insist Judaism always included the idea of Tikkun Olam, I think many historians would say you are talking about a religion that developed during the Babyloian Exile - not the religion of Abraham or the Children of Israel during the time of the kingdom. Orthodox Jews would disagre, they would say that this religion starts no later than Moses and perhaps as early as Abraham. We canot get around the fact that Orthodox and many non-Orthodox Jews believe that what we consider normative Judaism, or even elements of Judaism identifiable in the Hellenistic period, first developed at that time or rather developed a thousand or more years earlier. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I still agree with the first editor that "clung" has connotations that are not appropriate and we should find another word. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. How's this for a first draft (my changes in bold):

Judaism differs from many religions in that in modern times, central authority is not vested in any single person or group, but in sacred texts, traditions, and learned Rabbis who interpret those texts and laws. According to traditional Jewish belief, Throughout the ages, Judaism has clung always adhered to a number of religious principles, the most important of which are is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it. According to traditional Jewish belief, the God who created the world established a covenant with the Israelites, and revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah, and the Jewish people are the descendants of the Israelites. The traditional practice of Judaism revolves around study and the observance of God's laws and commandments as written in the Torah and expounded in the Talmud.

What do you think? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your version is a big improvement. As long as we are fixing things, I think that Judaism has always (and now I am going back to Abraham) believed in a God who is both transcendent and imminent; we need to specify this. However, I am not sure that even the rabbis always believed God to be benevolent ... God's killing the firstborn of Egypt, as well as the flaying of Akiva, are important parts of the Rabbinic portrait of God. Benevolent really isn't a Jewish word, anyway - perhaps we can replace it by saying that Judaism has believed in a God who is both just and merciful - my sense is, the Jewish view of God always involves the tension between contrasting features (transcendent and imminent; merciful and just) and we should be using this language. Finally, rather than "adhere" why not say Judaism has forwarded, presented, highlighted, valued ... one of these words? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems there is at least consensus over the word "clung." I will change "clung" to "adhered", and leave the theological discussion to you guys. Framed0000 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

== Caananite "Religious Heritage"? == 

What are these shtuyot doing on this page? This section belongs elsewhere, perhaps in "secular interpretations of Jewish history" but not smearing the front page of the Judaism section. It's ridiculous to present Judaism as a serious religion, only to reduce it's foundations to a culturally adapted narrative based on nothing but the superstitious of a long extinct, highly immoral people. 213.8.159.151 (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)