Talk:Judaism

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)

Why "learned" Rabbis? Should we also call corresponding offices in other religions "learned"? Or, perhaps, does this mean there are ignorant (non-learned) Rabbis who are not allowed to interpret stuff? Isn't this just hype, like saying my country has a "vibrant" culture, a "high-tech" economy and "beautiful" women? Do I need to put a "Citation needed" on "learned"? Fourtildas (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God" also needs a citation. Actual historians in actual universities think that jewish monotheism was invented in Iraq in 500 BC. This whole "article" is just a pile of Fourtildas (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2009 (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)

Re: Fourtildas, would that make Kings David and Solomon (who lived circa 1000 BCE) non-Jewish non-monotheists? I never heard of any professors who made the claim that Jewish monotheism was first proposed during the Babylonian exile. --GHcool (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned further down under "Critical historical view". Somebody please provide sources for "many consider it the first monotheistic religion." and "Throughout the ages". I understand that the Jews (like most religions) believe that that have always believed the same stuff. They don't like to admit that somebody just concocted all their sacred beliefs at some time. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Judaism, not just a recitation of religious beliefs. It should tell me what actual academic scholars think, not just what true-believers believe. Fourtildas (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Some errors in the article

According to Jewish tradition, the history of Judaism begins with the Covenant between God and Abraham (ca. 2000 BCE), the patriarch and progenitor of the Jewish people.

No it doesn't, it begins with the creation, otherwise to recite kiddush on Shabbat and to say that it is a rememberance of the creation and that God rested on the seventh day would not make sense.

The above is a non-sequitor. That Jews celebrate the creation of the world does not mean that Judaism began with the creation of the world, you are illogical. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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.

Yes, but it does not differ in this respect from Islam. Some Muslims hold the view that Judaism and Islam are one and the same religion (reference later) See the wikipedia article Judaism and Islam, and the first reference given on this: and article by Rabbi David Rosen. (links later).

Yes but the point is historical - Judaism may be the first religion to do this. Also, even if other religions do this, it remains an important element of Judaism. There is no claim that this is the only element of Judaism. This point is trivial. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the news I see "Israel's chief rabbinate severed ties with the Vatican on Wednesday", "The Jewish state's highest religious authority sent a letter to the Holy See". [[1]] Sounds like a "central authority" to me. Fourtildas (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Several countries have Chief Rabbis. Israel has two. The Chief Rabbinate is a leadership position and political office, not a theological one, and the Chief Rabbi's decisions are not binding on all Jews. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The rabbinical courts decide who is Jewish enough to marry you. Surely that is a central religious authority.(I realize there are some fringe sects that don't follow these rulings). Please provide a source. Is it a religious doctrine that there should be no such authority? Fourtildas (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Throughout the ages, Judaism has adhered to a number of religious principles, the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it.

Not according to Hillel, who was asked this question (to explain the torah while standing on one foot. His answer was "Do not do unto others what you would not wish done to yourself." (the negative golden rule)

Non-sequitor. Hillel's answer in no way negates the other position presented. Both are possible and there is every reason to believe hillel would have agree that there is a single omnipotent God. Hillel was not asked "what is the most important religious principle," he was asked to explain Torah; these are two different questions. Your comment is not logical. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This derives from Leviticus 19:18 "Love thy neighbour as yourself" and verses 33 and 34 - not to discriminate the stranger, you shall love him as yourself.

This means that the set of mitzvoth (commandments) between man and man is a better starting point that the set between man and God (ceremonial laws).

It might mean that Hillel might have believed it. At best this is one view among many. Another view is that the two approaches are both important and valid. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A rabbinic general principle to act to prevent the suffering of living things tza'ar ba'alei hayyim is derived from several specific laws on this matter.

The essential view of Judaism is that the oral law supercedes the written law (this is stated specifically in the Talmud) and that there is a practical tradition regarding hospitality, non-discrimination of foreigners, to care for the widow, the orphan and the poor etc and that this is torath hayyim - the living torah.

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.

This quote echoes the point you make just before it, so I assume you would agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it relies on distinguishing between good and evil, and doing good (Psalter ref later). In order to follow the torah without harming people and living things, it is necessary to have knowlege (this is one point where Judaism and Budhism coincide). Without knowledge, it is not not possible to do good and exercise compassion.

Agin you create false dichotomoes. Why can't stuyding God's laws be a means of learning to distinguish between good and evil and doing good? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The first prayer in the eighteen benedictions (tephilah)is for knowledge, insight, understanding, wisdom.

Therefore prayer and study are equivalent, and Jewish services include study (eg a recitation of the 13 priciples of interpretation of the torah of Rabbi Ishmael in the morning service) and Pirkey Aboth on Sabbath afternoons.

Another non-sequitor, this is just sophistry. Torah and Avodah are both important and no one denies this, but that doesn't make them equialent. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The qualities of God enumerated by Moses (hanun ve'rahum, hesedh) compassion, lovingkindness have been passed on to Christianity and Islam (where some words are identical in Hebrew and Arabic).

I do not recognise Judaism as a religion from the description in the article. It is presented as a fossilised, dusty, legalistic irrelevant religion and I know this from other sources to be a Christian view.

I do not know why you find the Torah and Talmud dusty, fossilized, or irrelevant. You have some bias against Jewish law, but what is wrong with Cristianity is not that they acknowledge the importance of law in Judaism but that they think it is fossilized and dusty. Since you think it is fossilized and dusty you think just like a Christian and it seems to me you are just pushing a Christian POV here. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This view is sometimes presented in church sculpture as the synagogue represented by a female with a broken staff (superceded by the church) The essential characteristics of Pharisaic judaism in Hillel's traditon are taken over by the church and Judaism described as a passé, fossilised religion 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC) RPSM (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the deficiencies that you've pointed out are more a result of secular academics thinking they know better. Whatever the case, you've certainly done this article good by noting some of the obvious flaws in the content. Still, I would caution that there are different views within Judaism itself about how it is distinct as a religion. As per Wiki practice, show your sources. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The wiki article kicks off with the introductory paragraph to the article on Judaism in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905 by Kaufman Kohler.[[2]] but incorporates none of the points made in that article as for example that Judaism has no dogma and no creed or belief system by means of which entrance is gained to the religion. The article is here:[3] What is the point of reproducing one encyclopedia by copying it into another? The question has already been asked on one wiki discussion page regarding The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905. RPSM (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. "Far from having become 1900 years ago a stagnant or dried-up religion, as Christian theology declares, Judaism has ever remained "a river of God full of living waters," which, while running within the river-bed of a single nation, has continued to feed anew the great streams of human civilization."

Then the wiki article goes straight ahead to expound the Christian theological position of Judaism as a dusty religion of rabbinic sophistry.

The Jewish Encyclopedia 1905 article says that entrance to Judaism is not by way or a creed or set of beiefs, and then goes on the quote Maimonides Thirteen principles of the faith as if it were a creed, which it is not. (No, you cannot find it in every prayerbook and it does not form part of any synagogue service and is disputed as being given too much importance.)

Judaism doen not work like Christianity and is not based on Christianity. Neither is Christianity based on Judaism. RPSM (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent change

Today SLRubenstein edited the lead to read "many consider it a monotheistic religion". Does anyone not consider Judaism a monotheistic religion? There's also a markup error with that edit, so I'll probably revert the whole edit until this discussion is resolved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is your only problem with what I wrote, I have no objection to modifying it. I realize now the phrasing is ambiguous. I do not think anyone questions that it is monotheistic; I do think there are scholars who resist labeling it a religion. Suggestions? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to commenting on Wikipedia so forgive me if I do so inappropriately. I saw earlier on this page the quote "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Unless these scholars represent a large minority (and I find that hard to believe) you should not cloud the article. Furthermore, if their objections are based on a different interpretation from the majority of what is needed to be called a religion, the objections should be referred to in the article on religion. If a large minority of scholars differ in their interpretation of Judaism to the extent that they think it doesn't qualify as a religion, that must be stated here explicitly with citations.78.146.203.162 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Jon.

There are a few problems with the version Steven J. Anderson reverted to. For one thing, some sloppy writing - "principles and ethics" well, aren't ethics a kind of principle? And doesn't principle leave out the whole notion of practice, which is central to Judaism? Also, there are a lot of historians who would argue that to say Islam "originates" in Judaism is at best a serious distortion; some question the same claim about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. I tried to provide language that was more open to different views (without excluding this one view). Although Orthodoxy (and many Conservatives) claim a clear continuity between Rabbinic Judaism and Israelite religion, many historians question this, vigorously. Again, I didn't want to write anything that excludes this view, but the introduction has to be inclusive of other views. Many scholars question the appropriateness of applying the word religion to Judaism given that much of the Talmud relates to civil law and the Western notion of religion may not have existed in Rabbinic or even Biblical times. Again, this does not mean that there are no people who consider Judaism a religion, I know many do - but the introduction has to be written a way that does not exclude other significant views. One constant in the Bible (indeed, virtually every book of the Bible) and the Talmud and later Jewish literature is the notion of covenant, a term so central to Judaism that it is somewhat surprising not to see it in the intro; I remedied that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't as opposed to the entire edit as it may have seemed from my wholesale reversion. I just saw what I thought were a couple of problems and figured the best way forward was to revert and start over. I have to run out and haven't got time to really look at it again. I'll post more later. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I restored what I wrote but made one change in an attempt to address your stated concern ... maybe you can come up with something better... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we referring to ancient Henotheism (ie: there are many gods for the various nations but my God can beat up your god) or to issues with modern Kabbalah? or something else, perhaps? Valley2city^‽ 06:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, see what I wrote above. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The article should have been written by an Orthodox Jew

I believe that this page should have been written by an orthodox Jew so that this would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanluvr01 (talk • contribs) 02:07, February 5, 2009

"the distinctive characteristics of the Judean eáqnov"

Does anyone know what this means? I suggest it's removed. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As it comes from the most authoritative scholar on the topic, and a verifiable reliable source, I see no grounds for removing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but I think it should be modified to "Judean ethnos" or "Jewish people". The source refers to ethnos but not eáqnov. In any event, eáqnov is the Greek word ethnos. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When I entered it in originally, I used Greek letters, or thought I did. I used the original book which had Greek lettering (I think Malik is linking to the preface or introduction; the page I actually quoted from - or the chapter ant any rate where Cohen provides an in-depth analysis of the origin of the word, he provides the actual Greek). I think since that time WIkipedia has changed its code. If someone can replace it with the Greek, I think that would be appropriate. We can then put "ethnos" as a transliteration after. That way we are true to the source and more accessible. Then the question is, should "ethnos" link to Ethnic group or is there a more appropriate article to link to? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the term has become disconnected from "from the Greek Ioudaïsmos" with which it was originally coupled. It makes no sense where it is currently and I'm not sure what it adds anyway. Although I don't dispute it's veracity, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, nor a Greek grammar primer, and showing the derivation from Greek is probably enough, without needing to show from where the Greek term Ioudaïsmos derives. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Keeping one Greek word adds information that will be of interest to some. Maybe not you, but few articles are of entire interest to everyone. Before I added this sourced etymology, there was an unsourced etymology that was not supported by any scholar of linguistics or of history. I see no problem with being clear. Why don't we focus on adding more quality sourced content, rather than discussing this trivial matter. One Greek word does a little bit of good and no harm. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnos" is a Greek word. I'd have thought eáqnov was merely an attempted transliteration or transcription of that Greek word:

εθνος

$\varepsilon \theta \nu \mathrm {o} \sigma \,$

(I don't know how to do the "final sigma" character in TeX.) "eáqnov" isn't written in Greek letters at all. What's going on? Is "eáqnov" supposed to be a transliteration or is it an unsuccessful attempt at rendering Greek letters?

eáqnov was my attempt to copy a Greek word in a book (hardcopy) I was using as a source - I do not have the book on hand but believe the author used the original Greek in Greek letters in the text - to Wikipedia. I think I tried cutting and pasting the word I found in the book, from some online source. My recent edit "ethnos" was my guess of what that word should be transliterated as in our alphabet. But if something is screwy here, I think it is "ethnos" and not "eáqnov". Sadly, I do not have a hardcopy of the book at hand. It would be good to check it. Cohen is a very careful historian and the article (the book is a collection of previously published articles) is asking, "when did a word for "Jewish" that means something other' than "member of the tribe of Judah" first appear. Since there is no original concept for Jewish or Jewishness in Hewbrew (except as a member of the Tribe of Judah), the concept he argues (with good evidence) comes from Greek. His argument is that people got a concept of ethnicity or nationhood from Greek, and then applied it to themselves, and created a new Greek word to express a "Jewish" identity that did not hinge on being a member of the tribe of Judah ... and only later, did people take the Greek neologism and use it to create a Hebrew neologism (well, neologisms 2000 years ago). Part of his argument is that Jews were adopting a Greek concept of "eáqnov" so the original Greek word and what it meant to Greek-speakers 2000 years ago is important. Does anyone have access to a real library that has a real copy of Cohen's book? Google books only gives access to the introduction to the book which does summarize his conclusions but the scholarly research is in the body of the book. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Judaism what kind of religion?

Judaism is a dragon satan worship religion. Christianity is a sect of it.