Talk:Judaism

The oldest living religion?

The article says that it is the oldest living religion ("It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[5] and the oldest to survive into the present day"). But in the article Zoroastrianism it says that it is as old as 2k bc. according to answers.com judaism is only 3300 years old (1300 bc). Am I missing something? Herr X (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. What the Zoroastrianism article says is "Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE.", which is not precisely the same as saying that Zoroastrianism began in 2000 BCE. If you'll check the lead to that article, you'll find this sentence. "It was probably founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Persia (Iran)." This does not establish an earlier founding date than that claimed for Judaism. Is this helpful? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, thank u Herr X (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)�

I think Orthodox Jews blieve Judaism is far more than 3300 years old. Maybe it depends on whether you date the beginning of Judaism with the covenant at Mt. Sinai, or the covenant with Abraham. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Original Zoroastrianism and Judaism where not alien to eachother. Xerxes/Ahasuerus, to whom the biblical Queen Esther were queenconsort is regarded as the first Zoroastrian King. And in the Tanakha expressed as Messiah, Annointed by God that is. One may say that Judaism is the branch of the Israeli/a'Brahminic religion pertaining to the tribe of Judah. Queen Esther was by the way, strictly speaking, not Jew, but of the Tribe of Benjamin. The concept of Judaism is somewhat misleading, except from the specific status of the tribe of Juda related to the blessing of Israel on Judah stating that the comming King of the all Kings, The royal caste, so to say, with the Messiah title will follow the Judah-tribe; while the Throne of Moses pertains to the Levi-tribe. This is somewhat contradictory in regard of Ahasuerus gaining the Messiah title in the Tanakh, unless one regards him as of Judah tribe himself; or more crazily as Judah himself. Legend has that he won immortality. Thus he is carrying the same name as that of the eternal Jew in quite so much litterature. The Lasuerus mystery is also somewhat related to these kinds of speculation. --Xact (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also remember that Judaism is NOT the oldest living religion. It is the oldest MONOTHEISTIC religion that historians know of. There are plenty of religions older than Judaism. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

just out of curiousity, which ones? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As I can´t edit in the proper document I will write it here. Judaism is not as stated here on wiki the oldest monotheistic religion, not even the oldest functioning one. That would be Zoroastrianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petterman (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion directly above this, in this section. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the dating we present in the article make the wording "3000-4000 years" more appropriate than "3000"? --Dweller (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain yourself a little. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We present several estimates, of which 3,000 is the least and 4,000 the most. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the giving of the Torah was 3332 years ago, while the patriarchs lived some 400 years before that. How should we call that? Over 3000? Close to 4000? Debresser (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Any of "3,000-4,000" or "three to four thousand" or "more than 3,000" work for me. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. I chose for "over 3,000". Debresser (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedantically, (I am a pedant!) "over" implies height. Could we not opt for "more than", which satisfies the uberpedant I am? --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I am a pedant myself, I have no problem with satisfying your wish in this. If I had been a native English speaker, I might have felt the difference myself, but I am not and I don't. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Judaism the oldest monotheistic religion to survive into the present day? May be not! It is stated in the artical about Judaism that it is the oldest monotheistic religion to survive today. The author is either unaware of the Vedic tradition on which Hinduism is based. The vedic tradition is the oldest of the monotheistic religion which is still practiced by the brahmans in India. I find also your articles on Hinduism lacking strong backing by religious experts in Hindu topics. For more information please refer to the online Oxford University lecture series on Monotheism in Hindu and Vedic cultures in India. For sure, Judaism in not the oldest monotheistic religion. Kindly clarify and correct, if necessary your article on Judaism and Hinduism.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Dr. Krish Sankaran

Hello Dr Sankaran. According to our articles (especially Historical_Vedic_religion) that religion is a) polytheistic and b) no longer practiced. While b may be arguable because aspects perpetuate into the modern Hindu religion, it's hard to argue with a, unless we've really made a massive mistake. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, Slrubenstein, there are at least hundreds of religions that predate Judaism. Most older polytheistic/pagan religions are older than Judaism, not to mention the countless small tribal religions found around the world, of which there can be no doubt many existed before Judaism. Judaism is probably not even the first monotheistic religion. However, there's a lot of historical evidence left behind dealing with Judaism more so than other religions, and some of this evidence makes a strong case for it being the first monotheistic religion (at least the first to leave behind a lot of records). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you do not know of any. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What? No. You read what I wrote and just completely ignored what I said. If you want a few specifics, there's Greek paganism/polytheism, most of the Aboriginal tribal religions, Sumerian polytheism/paganism (the oldest known religion in the world), and, like I said, thousands more. I'm not going to list all of them. MOST polytheistic religions are older than Judaism. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Greek and Sumerian paganism/polytheism have survived to the present day? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I never claimed that they had, though. Actually, though, there are a lot of neopagans, though it could obviously be argued that the religion they worship is extremely different today than it was thousands of years ago. However, the same could be said of Judaism and Jews. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence to which editors are (apparently) objecting is "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[5] and the oldest to survive into the present day." So, I don't think Greek polytheism etc. would be relevant to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. You must have missed the conversation I was havin earlier with another user above. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a storm in a teacup. Rather hard to judge ages for things like religions - if the religion changes (e.g. Catholic England becomes Protestant England), does the resulting religion (Anglicanism) date its origins from Henry VIII or from the Apostles? How about Judaism as one of the earliest monotheistic religions, which I don't think anyone could argue with?PiCo (User talk:PiCo) 04:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What my point of contention is with the second part "the oldest to survive into the present day." Zoroastrianism is just as old as Judaism (given that Judaiasm borrowed many different ideas and elements from Zoroastrianism) and is still practice till this day, albeit it is much smaller. (User talk:Starcomet) 02:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my post from November of 2010 (the second one in this thread). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But scholars have now found that based on linguistic data Zoroastrianism could be as old as 1,500-1,800 years old, which would make it as old as Judaism. And the wiki article on Zoroaster, the founder of the religion states, "The date of Zoroaster, i.e., the date of composition of the Old Avestan gathas, is unknown. Scholarly mainstream opinion mostly places him near the 11th or 10th century BCE, but dates proposed in scholarly literature diverge widely, between the 18th and 6th centuries BCE." So if the founder is believed to be prior to 1000 BCE that makes him just as old as Judaism. The article also states, "By the late 19th century, scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noted problems with the "Traditional date," namely in the linguistic difficulties that it presented. The Old Avestan language of the Gathas (which are attributed to the prophet himself) is still very close to the Sanskrit of the Rigveda. Therefore, it seemed implausible that the Gathas and Rigveda could be more than a few centuries apart, suggesting a date for the oldest surviving portions of the Avesta of roughly the 2nd millennium BCE."

If the holy book of Zoroastrianism is said to be as old as 2000 BCE than the wikipedia article about the religion being as old as 6th century BCE is in error. And scholars have found that while Abraham is indeed an ancient figure born before Zoroaster, Moses, said to be the founder of the religion of Judaism, is considerd a contemporary of Moses according to the wikipedia article. It seems the Zoroastrian article should be edited to revise its dating of 6th century BCE. Again what I am contending is the statement that judaism is the oldest religion to survive till today.Starcomet 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

If you're right that Zoroastrianism "could be as old as 1,500-1,800 years old", that would make it not older than Judaism, but younger than Christianity. Your statement that "if the founder is believed to be prior to 1000 BCE tht makes him just as old as Judaism" is flatly wrong, as Judaism is widely held to be quite a bit older than 1000 BCE. If Bartholeomea and Christensen are right about the linguistic problems with the Gathas and correctly estimates the date for the oldest parts of the Avesta as "roughly the 2nd millenium BCE", then this does not establish a date earlier than Judaism since the 2nd millenium ended at 1001 BCE, quite a bit later than the beginnings of Judaism. Your statement "(i)f the holy book of Zoroastrianism is said to be as old as 2000 BCE" doesn't count for much until you find a reliable source that makes that claim. Your next sentence says that Moses was a contemporary of Moses, a tautology that I suppose is not what you meant. If you meant that Zoroaster was a contemporary of Moses, you're wrong. The Zoroaster article says that the mainstream view is that he lived between 900 and 1100 BCE. Moses is usually dated no later than 1270 BCE. Nothing you've written so far establishes a date for Zoroastrianism earlier than for Judaism. If you have a dispute with the way the Zoroastrianism article reads, you may go there and make a case to change it, but if you do, you'll have to come up with something better than you have here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the errors in my posts as I was not paying attention since I was sleepy. If Zoroastrianism is as old as 1500-1800 BCE then how can it be younger than Christianity When Christianity did not exists till after 30 CE? Sorry if I am confusing you with my typing as I wrote that late as you can tell. Here is something about the age of the oldest portion of the Avesta being as old as 2000 BCE, "Nobody knows the precise age of Zoroastrianism. The traditional date of 600 BCE was assigned by priests of Zoroastrianism in. The older Avesta is written in a language similar to the Sanskrit of the Rigveda, which would give it a date of about 2000 - 3500 BCE, and making Zoroastrianism one of the oldest religions in the world.the Alexandrian age, But it is untenable based on the language of the older Avesta." http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/zoroastrianism.htm However I still find this website not too reliable so I did some more digging and found something else, " The seventeen Gâthâ's, probably composed by Zarathustra himself, are the oldest part of the Avesta (overview). The language of these hymns resembles that of the Indian Rigveda, hymns that were probably composed in the Punjab between 1500 and 1200 BCE. E.g., the Gathic word ahura, 'divine lord', is identical to the Vedic word asura. This linguistic similarity suggests that the Gâthâ's are very old indeed." http://www.livius.org/au-az/avesta/avesta.html

Here is a link to a book on google which also makes a similar argument: http://books.google.com/books?id=g2W0keFro08C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=Gathas+dating&source=bl&ots=NwUu4e5Lhs&sig=Lr7CdLuBVrIGK6ztzr7MPXgrUjo&hl=en&ei=g7uYTaeXFPKx0QGZusSDDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Gathas%20dating&f=false The dating of 6000 BCE is unsupportable in my opinion and I think 2000-1200 for the oldest parts of the Avesta to be accurate.

Another book on google which dates The oldest parts of the Avesta to around 1500 BCE or a bit early: http://books.google.com/books?id=r4IFsZCzJEC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Gathas+dating&source=bl&ots=SbRnEBsuml&sig=S4x4GjrAFiITkMgOQsubXhvGTDs&hl=en&ei=LL6YTZW5GqG00QHxrbnxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Gathas%20dating&f=false

What I am finding is that Dating many of these ancient figures can be very hard and difficult to do. But if the oldest part of Avesta (the Gathas) is believed to have been composed around 1500 BCE and "if" Zoroaster indeed wrote them, this would make him a contemporary of Moses or even a bit older. The tradidional dating of 600 BCE is now largely suspect by scholars according to the dating. The oldest dating of the Book of Genesis is said be as old as 950 BCE for the Yahwist source according to the wikipedia article Documentary Hypothesis and the website Rleigious Tolerance gives a similar dating: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm I will continue to look for more resources as I found some during my college studies but cannot remember the sources.Starcomet 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

Do you have any reliable sources that state Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I did find a few books and a quote by Mary Boyce, a leading figure on Zoroastrianism, and she states "Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." Other than that, every time I look I keep findig people split between Judaism is the oldest and Zoroastrianism. As of now the question as to which is oldest is still seems to be up in the air as you could argue for either side and we are still unsure about Zoroasters "exact" dates. Here is something else about it: http://www.duke.edu/~jds17/zoroast.html. Some others books that are reliable sources include, THE ZOROASTRIAN TRADITION by Farhang Mehr, Zoroastrianism: Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour by Mary Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism: Vol. 3, Zoroastrianism Under Macedonian and Roman Rule which has a google book link here: http://books.google.com/books?id=MWiMV6llZesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false. I would have to buy these books and study them to see if they claim Zoroastrianism is indeed the oldest. Again, I am not trying to say Zoroastrianism is the oldest but just "as" old as Judaism and one of the few monotheistic religions to survive till today. Starcomet 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

Boyce does not appear to make the claim that it is the world's oldest monotheistic religion. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I need to read her literature to see if she does. That other link I offer does, but I will need to read her works and see. Starcomet 00:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

Punishment

NO SECTION ON TORAH PUNISHMENT?

I find it funny how there is a long section in Islam that deals with Sharia law and more specifically how those that break certain rules are punished (ex Zina) How come there is no section here, dealing with the same stuff? Is it because perhaps according to the Torah the punishment for breaking many of these rules are quite severe? This is ridiculous, somebody needs to add this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.144.193 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is interesting, but flawed. Unlike Islam, there is no modern Jewish legal system in the sense that you describe. Some elements of Jewish civil law are imposed by Batei Din around the world, certainly many strands of Judaism believe in heavenly punishment (and reward) but there is no jurisdiction anywhere in the world that judges, eg, murder cases on the basis of what you call "Torah punishment". With that in mind, the right article would not be Judaism, but Jewish law. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That said, a subsection called Reward and punishment might be a good idea - it's an important concept in Jewish law. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the Torah is a living document and its laws having meaning only insofar as they are interpreted in application by the rabbis, I think it would be follow just to repeat what it says in the Torah - besides, this is an article on Judaism, no on the Torah. If we are to have a section on punishment in Judaism, it should be those punishments enforced by Jewish authorities. Dweller's point is well-taken but in many places where Torah is not sovereign, peopl enter into voluntary binding arrangements to accept the ruling of a beit-din. Does anyone know of good sources for such rulings in the 20th century, regardless of country? I think it would indeed be valuable to provide a section drawing on such sources.

As to reward, I am not sure why this necessarily gos with punishment. In US courts at least people are not rewarded for proper behavior. I know that many individual rabbis have speculated about theodicy - some is recorded in the Talmud and individual Jewish philosophers have mae their own claims .... but it was always my sense that most Jews belived that good behavior is its own reward. I know Jews who have told me they believe in the rewards of the afterlife but that they would have obeyed the law even if there were no such reward. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reward and punishment have gone together as a Jewish concept for a very long time. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree strongly with Dweller, because Jewish law is in use in certain communities throughout the world, and in certain areas in the state of Israel. In addition the subject is significant from an academic point of view. Debresser (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You disagree that we should have a section on reward and punishment? You seem to be arguing in favour. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am. I disagree with what you said that Jewish law is not modern. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Err, where did I say that? Of course there is modern Jewish law, but not involving the kinds of punishments the IP is asking about. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, that is the whole point. One cannot write about Judaism's penal code using an ancient religious text as one's source. Instead, one must use modern, reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your making your old mistake again. There is nothing wrong with quoting Jewish sources about Judaism. They are secondary sources for the matter of Judaism articles. Old discussion, old and stubborn opponent. You are dismissed. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

<-I'll start drafting something at Talk:Judaism/Reward and punishment sandbox. You're all welcome to come tinker with it, before it's moved into the article. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "Reward and punishment" is a phrase that will only muddle things. We should have an article on Jewish theodicy, which could begin by saying that Jewish theodicy is undeveloped in the Hebrew Bible; that the Pharisees believed good behavior in this life would be rewarded in a "world to come," and that different individual Jewish theologians since have proposed their own theodicies" (it is important to make clear that Judaism is non-creedal and none of these theodicies is binding on Jews). Jewish legal authorities have a right to punish and to award damages, and this is very different from whatever reward the Holy One may or may not give. Lo bashamayim hu. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Theodicy"? I know we shouldn't dumb down, but we shouldn't use overly complex language. Anyway, come along to the sandbox and have fun. (Pedantically, it's lo bashamayim hee, but let's call the whole thing off.) --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to use the word - I m just pointing out a real distinction within Judaism. PS hope the Torah will forgive my gender-bending slip! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hell#Judaism

Could someone have a look at this? It's unreferenced and has the taint of OR. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But the content seems to be true to the Jewish view of this phenomenon. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Judaism's texts; Debresser

Mr. Debresser, you reverted back a belief as it was a fact! Do all Abrahamic faiths believe so, too? It should either say "Jews believe/claim" or only the fact that they have influenced traditions. Others say that the text comes from the same source, not from each-other. The second source is also a POV! AdvertAdam ^talk 06:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made this edit, however, Debresser reverted it saying that the previous wording is more correct. I suggest that the POV can be changed to a belief rather than a fact, or just remove "texture" and keep "traditions and values". AdvertAdam ^talk 03:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Judaism's texts did influence other Abrahamic faiths. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what half of the population claim; however, Muslims and Bahai faith believe that the Qur'an was from the same source, but din't copy Judaism's texture. The Quran just explains the full history, having different content most of the time. They don't even except the Old Testament as a whole AdvertAdam ^talk 05:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Torah and Psalms were written well over 1,000 years before the Qur'an. There were a number of Jewish tribes in Arabia, and Arabs of the time were well aware of the texts. The New Testament was also written many centuries before the Qur'an. The Qur'an mentions all of them (taurat, zabur, indjil). Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, but that doesn't mean that the Quran copied texts from the two earlier testaments. Muslims belief that it's a divinity from the same God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob. Likewise, when an Encyclopedia writes about a biography in year 1900 and another writes about the same thing in year 2000, it doesn't mean that the second took the content from the first! AdvertAdam ^talk 06:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't say the Qur'an "copied texts from the two earlier testaments". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Judaism's texts, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions" traditions and values are true; however, text are not agreed on with all parties! AdvertAdam ^talk 07:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying Judaism's texts didn't influence Christianity? What are the reliable sources you have for your claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that the text only influences Christianity, considering the Old Testament a part of the Bible. But Christianity is not the only Abrahamic faith, you still have Islam and Bahai Faith... AdvertAdam ^talk 07:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On what reliable sources do you base your views? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no reliable source on this article that includes, "Judaism's texts strongly influenced Islam/Qur'an"--considered to be almost half of the Abrahamic Faith's population. Anyways, this article says that Muslims believe that the Qur'an was sent as a divinity from God (includes the history of Sons of Israel, not copying it from Judaism texts). Likewise, I have tons of scholarly sources that say Jewish Scriptures were copied from Zoroastrians, Christian scriptures are from Judaism, and Muslim scriptures are from Judaism and Christianity. Commonsense considers this a personal attack, which forbids it from being mentioned on this article. Therefore, I assume that this line is considered the same way: phrasing a claim of some Abrahamic Religion texts being taken from Judaism as a fact, instead. Confirming, I think a claim should be mentioned AS a claim, not a fact. I'm ONLY against mentioning "text", NOT "traditions and values". AdvertAdam ^talk 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about; religious beliefs, whether of 10 people or a billion, are not relevant to what reliable sources say on a subject, and mentioning the influences on Islam can in no way be considered a "personal attack"; please review WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I only gave you that source because you said, what sources do you have that the Quran isn't influenced by Judaism text. Anyways, my point here is, Islam is not influenced by Judaism text; It's only influenced by Judaism history and traditions. Therefore, I think it's wrong to put that statement as a fact. It can be "Jews believe that Judaism's texts, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions," OR "Judaism's traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions," OR "Judaism's history, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions,". If not, then do you agree of adding a section saying that Judaism text was influenced by Zoroastrian text, from scholarly sources. It's the same thing AdvertAdam ^talk 02:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a tit for tat game where one trades mentions of Judaism's influence on Islam with Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism. I've added two reliable sources outlining the influence of Jewish texts on Islam; now please provide reliable sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Gsh, work and finals started to stress me at the same time :).

(1) I didn't mean as a trade; I was just talking about the fact that sometimes different sources give opposite opinions, so we can't put a source that says the Jewish Bible is influenced by Zoroastrian Text here, like this. The hardcover of this crazy book is continually sold out, and it ranked the best 150 selling books on Amazon, in 2002. I don't believe any of the crap that is in it, and I already proved it wrong in my blog with 300 viewers now. But I can't deny that he's still considered a reliable source, too.

(2) Regarding the Qur'an, this statement was also explained as the opposite, "Second, the interpretation of the Koran is sometimes likened to the study of the Jewish and Christian Bibles.".

(3) Another source also explains the additional historical facts in the Qur'an, which were not mentioned in the Bible. You can check this out, especially the second paragraph stating, "while there are several incompatibilities between the biblical..." (p.157). Also, p.155 states the Quranic history.

Therefore, yes you have reliable sources (which only talks about the similar headlines, as it was copied from the oldest source), but there is other sources that say the opposite; without counting the Malaysian, Indonesian, and Arabic studies, as it's hard to connect to their libraries. AdvertAdam ^talk 07:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the influence of Judaism's texts on Islam. Maurice Bucaille was a medical doctor who wrote apologetics about the Qur'an; he is not a reliable source on the topic. If you have any reliable secondary sources on the topic, please provide them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, my [1] source clearly states that it's incorrect to say the Quran was interpreted from the Jewish Bible (text), which the book was authored by non-Muslims, Craig A. Evans and William H. Brackney. As I said, Islamic sources are hard to find here in the West; but I can contact some old friends to connect me to other libraries. AdvertAdam ^talk 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The source you've brought is actually James H. Charlesworth, and he says no such thing. He says Muslims do not study the Qur'an in a text critical way. The fact that devout Muslims believe that the Qur'an was recited to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel is not in question, nor is it relevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get one thing straight? Near as I can figure, the Jewish texts substantially antedate any Muslim texts. Mohammed decidely refers to "people of the Book" which fairly strongly implies that he was familiar with the existence of Jewish and Christian texts. He refers also to characters and events found in the Jewish and Christian texts, which rather implies he was familiar with such texts. Does this article state or imply that sections of Jewish or Christian texts were plagiarized in the Qu'ran? Nope. The article uses the term "influenced." Frankly, if a prophet of a new religion refers to people, events and beliefs found in an older religion, it is quite reasonable to use the word "influenced." Collect (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Influenced can also mean that some of the Quran is taken from Jewish text (also referred to in the citations), which is not a mutual agreed point by all to put it as a fact. While there's other sources and believes that deny so, then it's considered a belief. What you're saying here is that he took that text, changed a couple things, and added some details by himself then. In other words, if you say both are influenced by God, it make sense; but if both claim to be a revelation, then you can't override one on another AdvertAdam ^talk 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Influenced" does not mean what you seem to think it means. What is clear is that Mohammed was familiar with Judaism and Christianity, and specifically refers to both in the Qu'ran. Wikipedia does not have an "official religion" at all. Collect (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, regarding your edit summary, I think I know what the word's meanings are and I have a dictionary, too :). It can mean what you said AND it can also mean what I'm referring too, based on the two current sources in the article and the dictionary's list of meanings. Wikipedia also doesn't put one side of a story as a fact. Of course it's unappropriate to add a section in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam pages that their texts are all influenced by Zoroastrian myths, based on my (1) reference above. He's a very known scholar & historian and have many supporters too, but it's considered unproper unproven theology--just like source [9] on this article, talking like he lived with Muhammad. It also said what I mean by influence, "Mohammad used biblic narratives to illustrate faith and actions in the spirit of the Koran"

Most important, based on your explanation of influence, then we can also write that the idol worshipers influenced Christianity and Islam, just because their holy books spoke about them too AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather then expounding on your personal beliefs here, please bring reliable secondary sources that support what you say. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just explaining the differences in the sources, not belief. What is a clear belief/theology is the first source to this section [9]; where Busse said that Muhammad used narratives from the Bible, even though many narratives have different details between the two. The second source [10], by Zeitlin, clearly states "Possible Influences on Muhammad's Inspiration".

Therefore, a belief or claim can't be used as a fact in this article, especially when there's other beliefs/claims that say the opposite.

Yes, James H. Charlesworth was saying that the radical Muslims should critically study and realize that the Quran doesn't allow suicide bombing. Moreover, the followed paragraph insists that the three texts (Jewish and Chrishtian Bibles, and Quran) are a divinity from God. Then, following in the next paragraph that it's incorrect to say that one is based on the study of another. AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

AdvertAdam, this is meant as a constructive and supportive suggstion: your English is pretty good, but if it is not your native language, ask a friend who is a native English speaker to go over our grammar and sentence construction before posting, it will enable you to convey your ideas more clearly. I have been following this thread and would have given up some time ago, except it just keeps going. As far as I can tell the main question is whether the word "impact" is more appropriate than "influence." The words are very close in meaning but I prefer influence for two reasons. First, it is a little more vague, elaving room for many different possible ways Judaism could have influenced Islam, and to many different degrees. Impact is a stronger word, and in some cases I do not think that the influence of Judaism on Islam was great enough to justify using the strong word "impact." Also, "impact" has violent connotations which personally I find distasteful. According to my dictionary the principal meanings of impact are:

1. The striking of one body against another; collision. See Synonyms at collision.

2. The force or impetus transmitted by a collision.

3. The effect or impression of one thing on another: still gauging the impact of automation on the lives of factory workers.

4. The power of making a strong, immediate impression:

Today, thanks to people like Samuel Huntington, the idea of a "collision" of different cultures is popular among some political circles. But the fact is, during the formative period of Islam Judaism did not "collide" with it. The first Muslims - the Prophet and his first followers - grew up in contact with Jews and with some knowledge of Judaism. There was no violent collision; Jews did not strike the Prophet or Muslims. At most the historical record might justify saying that the monotheism of the Jews had an impact on the first Muslims. There is clearly one element of Judaism that did make "a strong, immediate impression," perhaps making the Prophet receptive to God's words. Yes, this is just my opinion, I have no source and am not sugesting we include this. I am just trying to imagine what cases might justify such a strong word as "impact" and I can come up with only one. Unless we have reliable sources that use the word "impact," I think we are much better off with the softer, milder "influence." Influence can be indirect and it can take more forms (for example, early Muslims could respond to something in Judaism, but in a unique and creative way - this would be evidence of Judaism's influence, but it leaves room for much more agency on the part of Muslims).

So now we have been going on for 13 days on a question of semantics, and in 13 days as far as I can tell AdvertAdam has converted no one to her position. I think it is clear that there is a consensus for Debresser's revert. 13 days is plenty of time for discussion on such a minor matter. Let's move on, and consider other possible improvements to the article. For example, under Jewish texts, I agree that Jewish legal literature should be given the most weight. But I think midrash and piyyutim are at least as important as Jewish philosophy and deserve perhaps a small section comparable to the length given to philosophy. I may be wrong about this but I do not think Judaism makes the distinction between "diction" and "non-fiction" that the modern West does. neverthelsss, in my experience Jewish values are communicated as much through what might be called "fictions" - poetry and aggadot - that the article ought to call this to readers (e.g. non-Jewish readers) attention and explain why. Is there any chance we can talk about this for a week or two, rather than "impact" versus "impression?" I am not trying to ram this down people's throats, I am just asking for the thoughtful discussion I know editors here are capable of. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and highly agree on most points, as I also have more important things to follow, than a word. However, you haven't got the point of the whole argument. No one, ever, can deny that Judaism had and has an influence on Islam: history, prophets--faith-wise,...etc. My point here is that Judaism's text only has influence on Christianity, not Islam. My oppose is regarding that the narratives in the Quran was based on the Hebrew Bible, while this intention is clear in the two citations. Mentioning the Judaism text in the Quran doesn't mean it was influenced by it; Likewise, mentioning the idol worshipers doesn't mean Islam is influenced by them too.

Grammatical errors from writing in a hurry is definitely not a proof that English ain't my native language. I was born and raised in Central California, where I haven't been around any other languages, even Spanish. My Arabic studies are just within the past 4 years, relating to my recent travels and Academic research on Abrahamic Religions. Thanks for your comment, and I also want to close this soonest. I personally love and honor Judaism and also study the Old Testament frequently. AdvertAdam ^talk 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with Hindusim page being odlest religion then

Hinduism page says Hinduism is the oldest....on this page it says Judaism is the oldest.....71.106.83.19 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)