Talk:Modern Jewish historiography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Warshy (talk | contribs) at 21:48, 12 November 2023 (→‎Slowly catching up: More precise, thank you.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Ideas for reading and research

Andre🚐 22:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andrevan: thank you very much for this - I have added some of these in. I think the sources now in the bibliography are the best ones focused specifically on wide-view Jewish historiographies. My confidence in that statement is helped by the sources in the section "Studies of Jewish historiography" which describe the most significant works in this meta-field, at least up until the dates of the sources in that section (2006-07). Onceinawhile (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the work by Batnitzky might be a good counterpoint to Shlomo Sand. Is Judaism a religion, a culture, a nationality—or a mixture of all of these? In How Judaism Became a Religion, Leora Batnitzky boldly argues that this question more than any other has driven modern Jewish thought since the eighteenth century. This wide-ranging and lucid introduction tells the story of how Judaism came to be defined as a religion in the modern period... the book discusses many of the major Jewish thinkers of the past three centuries, including Moses Mendelssohn, Abraham Geiger, Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Zvi Yehuda Kook, Theodor Herzl, and Mordecai Kaplan. At the same time, it tells the story of modern orthodoxy, the German-Jewish renaissance, Jewish religion after the Holocaust, the emergence of the Jewish individual, the birth of Jewish nationalism, and Jewish religion in America. Andre🚐 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently doesn’t use Sand. It probably should in some form. Batnitzky’s thought provoking work is not a counterpoint to Sand; there is no contradiction at the core, because she also believes - from a different angle - that modern nationalism significantly changed what it means to be a Jew. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism predates religion. The concept of religion, is not that old, relatively. Drsmoo (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is one of the points made by Batnitzky. Andre🚐 19:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is the central point in her book. Of course the pre-modern all-encompassing “Jewish life” that she describes is quite right when considered in discrete regions (her book is very European-focused). In practice it is not possible to draw meaningful threads through the worldwide pre-modern Jewish communities without giving a name to the commonalities they shared - since books / manuscripts were the only long-distance media of the time, these commonalities were the Bible and Rabbinic books.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think her point is that for many people, especially poor and pre-modern, "Jewish" was the answer to every meaningful question of political, economic, social, cultural, etc., and "religion" wasn't a separate thing, whereas at some point, there arose a tension between assimilating into secular society, and one's religious life or obligations. Today, most people just have a religion as an afterthought, like a sports team that they are a fan of or something, but for most people in history, it was pretty all-consuming. Which is why I really think that Jewish identity is something that existed in a very well-defined way long before either the establishment of Israel or the Holocaust, and sure those two events are quite significant, but not defining. Andre🚐 20:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Of course, as Batnitzky explains, pre-modern local Jewish communal identities were very different to what we conceive Jewish identity to be today. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but there were many similarities as well. Sholem Aleichem published his first stories in Yiddish in 1883. That is where Fiddler on the Roof comes from, which was recently performed on-and-off-Broadway in NYC in Yiddish and English. That is Jewish identity, and nothing to do with nationalism and Zionism - in fact predates Zionism and survives authentically today. Andre🚐 23:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite right. That is Russian-Jewish or Ashkenazi-Jewish identity or Yiddish identity. Different although related to the old German-Jewish identity, and very different from the old Yemeni-Jewish or Baghdadi-Jewish identity. The Saint Thomas Christians have a unique religio-cultural identity too, but it cannot be accurately extrapolated to the that of all Christians worldwide. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The major splits are Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi, but we know there are specific shared things amongst those 3. Fiddler on the Roof and Sholem Aleichem and Yiddish culture and language are part of the shared heritage of the majority of the world's Jews (the majority of whom are Ashkenazi) and the majority of American Jews. It's not just a unique splinter identity, it's the core of Jewish identity. There are differences between German and Russian Jews, but both would share Yiddish culture and heritage. Andre🚐 14:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many Sephardi, Mizrahi and other Jews would consider the statement that [Ashkenazi identity is] the core of Jewish identity to be offensive. I assume you did not intend it as such.
Your underlying point is important though. The vast majority of writings about the rise of modern Jewish identity and modern Jewish historiography are in fact talking exclusively about the Ashkenazi experience. This needs to be made clear for our readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an offensive statement, it's just an observation; the fact is that Ashkenazi Jews are numerically the majority of Jews and the most recognizable, prominent group, just like Roman Catholics are a particularly recognizable group of Christians. That is why many sources, especially those focusing in the US/Canada/UK/France/Argentina diaspora Jews from the major waves of migration, focus exclusively on Ashkenazi Jews. It's true that for other Jews such as Sephardic or Mizrahi or Ethiopian, they wouldn't speak Yiddish, instead speaking Amharic, Arabic or Ladino etc., and they have differences in their cuisine, literature, liturgy, music, etc., but there are a lot of commonalities as well. My point was that Sholem Aleichem and Fiddler on the Roof are universally recognizable avatars of Jewish culture. Yes, they focus on a specific Jewish story that is specific to Ashkenazi Jews. But we also know now that many Ashkenazi Jewish families were from Sephardic and Mizrahi background further back into history. There are also a lot of commonalities and parallels between the pogroms and the exit from the Pale, to the earlier expulsions experienced by the Sephardim and the earlier exiles and conflicts. Andre🚐 20:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine writing "White identity is the core of American identity". How does that sound to you?
Your last sentence is at the core of this article. Modern scholars worked to thread the stories together to create a unified narrative. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look, I mean, how I'd modify the statement is that the interplay between early white Americans, the native Americans, and black American slaves, was at the core of each of those stories and experiences, and that race is critical to American history. It's certainly true that being British and French, and the interaction with British and French culture, language, literature, art, philosophy, etc., was critical to the American Revolution and the early post-colonial period. It's also the case that Native Americans had a huge impact on early American history, an even larger impact is lost to time and historical records which by their nature are written as they are with the deficiencies they have from being contemporary.
The point is that for most Jewish people, they were the "other" wherever they were - Hellenistic Jews, or Sephardic, Ashkenazi, or Mizrahi, so it's a parallel to a same or similar story. Ashkenazi Jews are not the "white" Jews any more than Sephardic Jews are the "Spanish" Jews or Mizrahi Jews are "Arab" Jews. They are all Jews that just translated and reconciled a fundamentally Jewish substrate into different environments, yet they share many of the same characteristics and aspects. It's one story and it wasn't weaved together simply by modern scholars, it's the case that, according to historians and confirmed by DNA research, Sephardic Jews aren't just Spanish people with a Jewish religion while Ashkenazi Jews are Poles or Slavs with a Jewish religion. In fact, many Ashkenazi and Mizrahi communities welcomed Sephardic Jews after their expulsion.
It's not wrong to talk about white working class voters in the Rust Belt, and it's not wrong to talk about the Borscht Belt. It's "Jewish ethnic identity most readily recognized by North Americans." Yes, that's a part of Jewish identity, a very prominent part in popular culture such as film and entertainment. So I don't think Sephardic Jews would look at that and say, "that's white privilege" or anything like that- they'd see Jews on TV. That's us. That's our brothers/cousins/us. Andre🚐 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree that Yiddish is universally representative of Judaism or relatable to all Jews. Especially in 2023. I also don’t agree that “Modern scholars worked to thread the stories together to create a unified narrative.” This is basically claiming that Jewish history is manufactured (“worked to create”), which I would expect more Jews from across multiple backgrounds to be bothered by than claiming Yiddish is a common standard.
Along the same lines, this article misrepresented a source by falsely attributing a statement that claimed all early modern histories of Judaism conceived of it as a religion. This is counter to the source, which presents conceptions of Judaism as essentially a religion to be a way by which Jews attempted to fit into European societies. “Envisaging Jewish identity as essentially religious” Envisaging means Judaism is not essentially religious, but they formed that conception. Drsmoo (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess I wasn't trying to say that every Jew speaks Yiddish or relates to Yiddish, but surely most English-speaking Jews, regardless of their specific community or background within the wider world of Jewish divisions, will be pretty familiar with some or most of bagel, schlep, kvetch, maven, spiel, schmear, oy gevalt. Probably moreso than even those who know more than a few words of Modern Hebrew, which most American Jews don't know at all. Andre🚐 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Basnage describes Jews as both a religion and a nation in what seems to be equal measure, as does Spinoza. I haven’t found an English translation of Jost yet. Drsmoo (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which period of Jewish history are Basnage and Spinoza covering when they use that description? A quote would be helpful. If they are covering the modern period that would be counter to modern scholarship’s interpretations so would be very odd. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are writing in their present tense. I can provide quotes if you’d really like, but this is not hard to verify. Drsmoo (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Myers, 2018, page 26: "What becomes clear is that the rationale for this expansive history lay not in Basnage’s intrinsic interest in the history of the Jews. The aim, he explained, was unmistakable: “We ought to have a clearer Knowledge of a Nation, to whom we have succeeded, and that shall be one day united with the Christian Church.” In other words, he wrote his history of the Jews as a means of demonstrating that Christianity had superseded Judaism and thus could liberate Christians—and, he hoped, Jews as well—from the ignominious Jewish past of theological error, ritual excess, and moral corruption to a state of salvation."
The parallel with the concept of a “Christian Nation” makes it clear that Basange uses the term in a religious sense, not a racial or ethnic sense.
Hence the conclusion of all the scholars. A good example of the importance of using secondary sources to interpret primary sources where possible. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is your original research and dot connecting. Drsmoo (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I look forward to discussing further once you have read the scholarly sources which I added to the bibliography of this article, or any others of equivalent quality that you are able to bring. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Not only is your conclusion original research, but your paraphrase that all early historiographies of Jews treated them as a religion is both self-evidently wrong, and a misrepresentation of the cited source. I do suggest you read How Judaism became a Religion as well. It is written by one of the foremost experts on Jewish studies in the world today and can help clarify any confusion you may have. Drsmoo (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please tone down the hyperbole. Our conversations rarely make progress unless and until you follow suit and bring specific quotes to support your assertions. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not brought specific quotes, so asking me to “follow suit” and bring quotes makes no sense. Drsmoo (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which statement do you consider hyperbole? Drsmoo (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Myers above. Or the many quotes in the article that I added. You have brought no sources and no quotes, just criticism. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That has already been discussed. Your interpretation of Myers is not a reliable source. Myers does not claim that nation means religion. That is your claim, not his. Similarly, no source provided makes the claim that all early modern histories of the Jewish people portrayed Judaism as exclusively a religion. Drsmoo (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you wrote “the parallel with the concept of a “Christian Nation’”. But that parallel is not made. You put “Christian Nation” in quotes, but that phrase is not found once in Meyers. Meyers states that Basnage’s goal was that the Jewish Nation would be United with the Christian Church. Drsmoo (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Meyers does say that, and Segal, p.306, says: [Basnage] uses the term "Nation" to depict Jewish society since the end of the Judaean commonwealth in Roman times, as essentially a religious community, not a polity. Please could you read the sources in the article before continuing this discussion further. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the Segal source and the relevant quote from, I guess you mean Myers, please. Drsmoo (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, that selection was missing some crucial information from the same paragraph:
“For Basnage the historian, in other words, there has been a continuing Jewish civilization and society since first-century antiquity which by no means defies historical treatment — irrespective of what Basnage the theologian may conceive to be the eventual religious disposition of this
anomolous people in dispersion.“ Drsmoo (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading the source and now confirming my point. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your point was that throughout the book Basnage refers to Judaism as a nation, which is meant as both a civilization and a society? And that religion had a different meaning in those days? For example, it is a mainstream view that Judaism wasn’t considered a religion in the Protestant sense until Moses Mendelssohn, who was born over 30 years after Basnage died. Drsmoo (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a quote from a source that supports the claim in your final sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Mendelssohn gives voice to the claim that I will be exploring throughout this book: that Judaism is a religion. In fact, he invents the modern idea that Judaism is a religion…In characterizing Judaism as a religion, Mendelssohn is aware of and actually emphasizes the implicit problems that follow from trying to define it thus in a German Protestant vein. Indeed, far from simply assimilating Judaism into an alien category, Mendelssohn’s attempt to define Judaism within the modern Protestant category of religion brings with it not-so-subtle criticisms of this very category.” -
How Judaism Became a Religion: An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thought by Leora Batnitzky Drsmoo (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no, sorry, I meant a source which explicitly confirms that this is "a mainstream view". Onceinawhile (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The author is one of the preeminent experts on Jewish studies in the world and describes it as a fact. I have not seen any sources disputing it. Drsmoo (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And it seems that you have not found anyone else confirming it either. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a view of Jewish historiography that belongs in the article, as I opined above. Andre🚐 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, but obviously needs in-line attribution. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Mendelssohn replied to his detractors by redefining what constituted Jewish law. Hinting at both Cranz's and Spinoza's extreme positions, he attached those who sought to "pigeonhole" Judaism into one of two categories: a Protestant version of "religion" or a state-based concept of a "nation." On the one hand, Spinoza insisted that Mosaic Law as a coercively enforced constitution rendered judaism a political identity. On the other hand, Cranz and Morschel insisted that if Judaism was not a political entity but taught principles of morality and charity, then it was not different from Christianity or Deism. Judaism, asserted Mendelssohn, was neither a form of Protestant Christianity/Deism nor a nation without a state. Rather, it was a religion (pace Spinoza), but it was on a non-coercive code of (ceremonial) law."
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Cambridge_Companion_to_Judaism_and_L/RdccDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA226&printsec=frontcover
"They both want an end to a medieval order where the state is a Christian state and the Jew is an eternal outsider. Mendelssohn's prescription for a disestablishmentarian state is as radical as Spinoza's. And the price that he is willing to pay remains high. Judaism is to become a confession, a religion construed along Protestant lines, shorn of its political basis in theocracy, commonwealth, and republic."
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_Jewish_Ethics/RqpTESjofdAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA172&printsec=frontcover
The crux of the debates was about whether Judaism was compatible with reason/enlightenment, and that because Judaism had its own laws/society (most Jews lived in their own enclaves), Jews could become citizens of a modern enlightened country. Presenting it as if Judaism was just viewed as a "religion" in pre-modern times is simply inaccurate. The modern concept of religion as simply one part of an individual's life hadn't been developed yet, and certainly wasn't applied to Jews. Drsmoo (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's much talk about Yerushalmi, he has quite a relevant quote about this subject as well:
"But how can the Jews be considered a nation? Today, outside Israel, it is not easily apparent and many diaspora Jews would deny it outright, or use the softer term “the Jewish people.” But from ancient times until the French Revolution Jews were conscious of themselves as a nation, a nation dispersed in exile, and were viewed as such by the non Jewish world as well. Striking proof of this can be found in the grand debate on Jewish emancipation itself, as it was first voiced in France in the revolutionary National Assembly. Both those in favor of granting citizenship and equal rights to the Jews in the new nation-state that was in the process of being born, as well as those opposed, agreed that the Jews have at least hitherto been a nation. Mere ethnicity was not the issue in this truly defining moment. On December 23, 1789, Count Stanislas de Clermont Tonnere, one of the prime advocates of Jewish citizenship declared: “Everything must be refused to the Jews as a nation. Everything must be given to them as individuals. They must become citizens. It is thought that they do not want to be such. Let them say it and let them be banished. There cannot be a nation within a nation. . . .”21 To which the Abb. Jean Siffrein Maury, a conservative opponent of Jewish emancipation responded: “I observe to begin with that the word Jew is not the name of a [religious] sect, but of a nation that has its laws which it has always followed and which it still wants to follow. To call the Jews citizens would be as if one said that, without letters of naturalization and without ceasing to be English and Danes, the English and Danes could become French.”22 The seemingly anomalous persistence of a Jewish national self-consciousness for almost two millennia following the loss of its state is a fact that, rather than be dismissed, should elicit astonishment and creatively challenge any conventional definition of what constitutes a nation.23 But even if the continued national character of the Jews in dispersion be granted, is continuous residence in a land since antiquity a necessary criterion for claiming sovereignty over it? To insist on this would be to ignore the role of migrations and conquests in history, to create a test that even European nations could not pass, let alone those of the Western Hemisphere. In the Jewish case the essential point lies elsewhere, in the myriad ways through which Jews everywhere until modern times fused their collective memory and collective hope and focused both on what they continued to regard as their true home. This was so even though Jewish life in the Middle Ages was far from being merely a vale of tears and Jews were often very attached to the lands in which they lived.24" Drsmoo (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lehmann, Matthias B. (2014). Emissaries from the Holy Land: The Sephardic Diaspora and the Practice of Pan-Judaism in the Eighteenth Century (1 ed.). Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8965-3. - haven't read, but adding this one to my own list. More:
  • Amanik, Allan M. (2018), Ross, Steven J.; Diner, Hasia R.; Ansell, Lisa (eds.), "Common Fortunes: Social and Financial Gains of Jewish and Christian Partnerships in Eighteenth-Century Transatlantic Trade", Doing Business in America, A Jewish History, Purdue University Press, pp. 25–48, ISBN 978-1-55753-836-9, retrieved 2023-09-30
  • Bregoli, Francesca (2018). ""Your Father's Interests": The Business of Kinship in a Trans-Mediterranean Jewish Merchant Family, 1776–1790". The Jewish Quarterly Review. 108 (2): 194–224. ISSN 0021-6682.
  • Aust, Cornelia (2013). "Between Amsterdam and Warsaw: Commercial Networks of the Ashkenazic Mercantile Elite in Central Europe". Jewish History. 27 (1): 41–71. ISSN 0334-701X. [06:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)]
  • Teller, Adam (2020). Rescue the Surviving Souls: The Great Jewish Refugee Crisis of the Seventeenth Century. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-16174-7. - talks about the Jewish world at large Andre🚐 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: [1] Andre🚐 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Jewish history books in the National Library of Israel
Jewish history books in the National Library of Israel

Created by Onceinawhile (talk) and Andrevan (talk). Nominated by Onceinawhile (talk) at at 12:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jewish historiography; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • I disagree with these proposed DYK framing's accuracy and it's also provocative in a way I don't think is positive for DYK. Josephus had a history of the Jews back in the Roman era, so why would you have DYK hook that says the first history was written by Protestants? Also, all major publications of Jewish history have been influenced by the political climates of their respective times isn't that true of all histories ever? And why would you write it like that? Andre🚐 14:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any concern with ALT2? It is Yerushalmi's most famous phrase.
ALT0 should have the word "modern" in there, thanks for pointing out.
I agree that ALT1 is true of all histories and so not unique here. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose all 3. Don't you think that's a little provocative to be writing days before Yom Kippur about lapsed Jews? Andre🚐 19:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This video is well worth watching; it is extremely well done. Professor David N. Myers, the Sady and Ludwig Kahn Chair in Jewish History at UCLA, opens with the statement that "Rare is the book that is spoken about with such reverence and such admiration 40 years later." If you don't have time to watch it all, skip to 46:40 for an interpretation of Yerushalmi's comment being quoted here. Further context is at [1] and [2]. Also pinging Oceanflynn who wrote our article on the book from which those oft-quoted words came. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose all the suggestions above, but would hope that we can find a hook for Zakhov whose publication continues to be honoured through articles and scholarly events 10, 25, and even 40 years after its publication. A hook that is neither insensitive, inaccurate, etc but newsworthy will most likely be found in Myers or in a closer reading of the video suggested by Onceinawhile. I will look at this more closely and perhaps update the article.Oceanflynn (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing this, I'm just chiming in to oppose all three as well and recommend that they be crossed out. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Below is a proposed alternative:
  • ALT3: ... that the first comprehensive publication of Jewish history by a modern Jewish author left "the differences among various phases of the Jewish past clearly apparent"? Source: Meyer 1988, p. 175
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Way too ambiguous for me, but others might disagree. How about finding a non-controversial, matter of fact hook that everyone can easily agree is workable? Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the four hooks I have suggested so far are uncontroversial, and confirmed by all the core sources on this subject. I can bring the other sources if helpful.
Can you explain what you mean by ambiguous in this context? I can then try to reword one or all of the four proposed hooks. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it helpful to move forward, not focus on looking backwards. Andrevan just edited the article which provides a good hook: "... that Heinrich Graetz was one of the first historians to write a modern Jewish historiography from a Jewish perspective?" Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm allowed to support a hook based on my own edit, but if I am, I support Viritidas' idea. Andre🚐 21:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per wp:DYKINT: The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. The new proposed hook basically says: “a person was one of the first to do something”. It needs a (fact-based) twist, perhaps about what Graetz did that changed the way Jewish history was written, or about how his work is perceived today. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grätz was a German Jew that some people consider a proto-Zionist since he, independent of Herzl, proposed a national identity for Jewish people, but he was also a German emancipationist and while he's on record supporting things that people later associate with Zionism, he's an interesting player in his own right. Andre🚐 22:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree – the dichotomy around Graetz's motivations for writing what was the first fulsome attempt at Jewish nationalism in historical writing is very interesting. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should go ahead and add your interpretation to WP:DYKINT and see if it has consensus. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had another idea after discussing with Andrevan on the article talk page – one very central to the article:

  • "…that studies of modern Jewish historiography have underlined the "break between a traditional Jewish understanding of history and its modern transformation"?"

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, ambiguous, too general, and not at all interesting. How about focusing on tangible specifics that readers can sink their teeth into? Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formalizing hook proposal with credits due for Andre and Onceinawhile. ALT4: ... that Heinrich Graetz was one of the first historians to write a modern Jewish historiography from a Jewish perspective?" Brenner, Michael (2010). Prophets of the Past: Interpreters of Jewish History. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-3661-1.
    • Needs new review. @Andrevan: ALT4 needs page number for Brenner 2010, as the page range provided is too large to check. Please add it to the pages parameter above. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The part of the book about Graetz starts around page 56 where it indicates Graetz being one of the first modern historians writing from a Jewish perspective and synonymous with Jewish historiography. I'll add it in. There is a bit on p.13 and 15 as well. Andre🚐 23:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Andrevan: You may want to consider re-writing ALT4 or adding an ALT5. While I don't necessarily agree with Onceinawhile's opposition to "a person was one of the first to do something", they are apparently correct that reviewers and closers have a house-style antipathy to approving hooks that have a first-based focus. I was unaware of this until now. @RoySmith: Since RoySmith recently commented about this issue on another DYK, perhaps they can opine whether ALT4 will work or not. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, let's rewrite it. I'll see what I can come up with. Andre🚐 00:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. The other DYK being referred to is Template:Did you know nominations/Deli 613. I see a few significant differences. One is that in the other case, it was essentially a first-person report; the owner of the deli answering questions in interviews. Here we've got statements from presumably scholars writing in published books, which are generally considered to be more reliable. Second, in the Deli613 case, the hooks were phrased in absolutes ("first", "only"). Here (ALT4) we've got "one of the first", which is much harder to argue with because finding a single counter-example won't invalidate the statement. RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The objection is not that it might not be a valid statement (it is definitely valid). The objection is WP:DYKINT. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own knowledge of Jewish historiography in general is extrememly limited inspite of my respect and some minor familiarity with some of Yerushalmi's writings. Due to my own lack of qualifications in this area, I am withdrawing from this discussion.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been doing a lot of work on the article-- anything jump out as a possible ALT5? I just added an interesting fact about Moskoni, who lived in the Balkan region and had a very large library of books that he used to write his introductions and commentaries on translations or historical work. Andre🚐 22:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we'd need to hear from the nom to see if this still can proceed. If there is no response soon this may need to be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that how DYK noms work? I was under the impression that anyone can make a nom, add a hook proposal, and review. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nom and am keen to proceed. All my proposed hooks have been shot down, so we need some more suggestions.
Note that Andrevan has since become the primary author of the article, so please could he be added a co-nominator?
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5: ... that the most popular book by and about Jews for non-Jews until the 20th century was translated by a young Balkan scholar?[2][3] Andre🚐 00:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am supportive of this. I have added a wikilink and a bolding. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you two in agreement, but there are some issues. My reading of the DYK guidelines tell me there shouldn't be parentheses in the hook, but I may be misinterpreting this. ALT5 is also 187 characters, which appears unnecessarily lengthy. My last concern is that the hook is a bit confusing given that Josippon is a text that predates modern Jewish historiography, but I get that you are referring to the modern version; it just seems odd. I think if you can chop it down it might work. Get in the habit of using the hook length link up above to view your hook size. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. I don't propose DYKs too often so forgive my ignorance of the conventions. I can knock it down to about 132 as follows - turning the wikilinks to Moskoni and Josippon into piped generic word links, which also explains that it is a "translated book" and remove the addition of "published" with book. Andre🚐 21:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you almost got it. Play around with different variations for a bit. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, I've inverted the clauses so we're down to 122 characters now. I probably can't chop it any further without starting with a new idea (except for maybe replacing the phrase "young Balkan scholar" with a shorter one). Andre🚐 21:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, but maybe add an ALT6 so if someone objects you can default to another. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT6: ... that dei Rossi's work on modern Jewish historiography was banned by Venetian rabbis, but he obtained imprimatur from a Catholic?[4] Andre🚐 22:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this nomination several times and I cannot see hide nor hair of an actual review, I need a QPQ, and this appears to be the oldest one at T:TDYK. I find ALT6 interesting, though perhaps it would be hookier to end it at "rabbis", and I'm taking the source provided here in good faith. This article is long enough and new enough. It is free from copyright issues, maintenance templates, and neutrality issues. Many of the references should be bundled per WP:TOOMANYREFS, although to my knowledge that is not a DYK issue. Unless anyone has any objections, let's roll.--Launchballer 13:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gafni, Isaiah M. (2016-11-21), "Adolf Büchler and the Historiography of Talmudic Judaism", Adolf Büchler and the Historiography of Talmudic Judaism, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 295–305, doi:10.1515/9783110330731-016, ISBN 978-3-11-033073-1, retrieved 2023-10-11
  2. ^ Bowman, Steven (2010). "Jewish Responses to Byzantine Polemics from the Ninth through the Eleventh Centuries". Shofar. 28 (3): 103–115. doi:10.5703/shofar.28.3.103. ISSN 0882-8539.
  3. ^ Bowman, Steven (1995). "'Yosippon' and Jewish Nationalism". Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research. 61: 23–51. ISSN 0065-6798.
  4. ^ Weinberg, Joanna (1978). "Azariah Dei Rossi: Towards a Reappraisal of the Last Years of His Life". Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia. 8 (2): 493–511. ISSN 0392-095X.

Definition

Saw this at DYK. The very first line is striking: Jewish historiography is the scholarly analysis of Jewish history in modern times. That does not seem like a good definition of "Jewish historiography". It precludes the existence of Jewish historiography before modern times. Srnec (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. As I mentioned earlier, Jewish historiography really begins with Josephus. Andre🚐 21:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the core sources focus on modern times, so the article focuses on modern times. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title does not describe the focus. Modern Jewish historiography is available. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Andre🚐 22:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef ha-Kohen

I added Yosef ha-Kohen (1496–1575) was a historian and physician of the 16th century. His is the first known work by a Jewish writer describing the history of non-Jews.[1]

I see that "Jewish historiography" is somewhat ambiguous in terms of the grammatical construction since it could technically also mean histories of histories written by Jews, not simply of Jews. I also fundamentally think there are going to be Jewish aspects to this history. Most Jewish historians don't write a history "of Jews," they write a history of the world from a Jewish perspective. Isn't that also Jewish historiography? Andre🚐 22:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrevan, thank you for bringing this here. I acknowledge your points re terminology – perhaps we need further work on the title, or the first line, to make the scope clear.
I subscribe broadly to @Levivich:’s forward editing approach, at least on topics where the key sources are very clear. The subject here, “modern history of histories of the Jews” has a surprisingly focused group of core sources, all of which are writing about exactly the same subject. They are summarized in the last paragraph of the article The study of modern Jewish histories began with Michael A. Meyer's "Ideas of Jewish History" (1974), developed further by Ismar Schorsch's "From Text to Context" (1994). These works emphasized the transformation of Jewish historical understanding in the modern era and are significant in summarizing the evolution of modern Jewish histories. According to Michael Brenner, these works – like Yerushalmi's before them – underlined the "break between a traditional Jewish understanding of history and its modern transformation".Michael Brenner's Prophets of the Past, first published in German in 2006, was described by Michael A. Meyer as "the first broadly conceived history of modern Jewish historiography".
I am keen to keep the scope focused on this topic. Perhaps there could be another early on “Early modern Jewish historians” to capture Yosef Ha-Kohen and many others? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I don't subscribe to Levivich's approach; I subscribe to the iterative, incremental, never-finished, always-evolving, agile model. But it does strike me that there are going to be other authors that may have been overlooked by the work in 1974 or even 1994, given that Sephardic and Arab world scholarship was often overlooked in favor of Christian world scholarship. For example, Gedaliah ibn Yahya ben Joseph definitely wrote a history of Jews, though I'm not sure if he invalidates the current description of "the first author in the modern era to publish a comprehensive history of the Jews." So I'm looking to see if there are any newer secondary/tertiary sources for this. David Gans is mentioned as well. As well as Yosef ha-Cohen, they are mentioned as writing "Jewish annals" or "chronicles." Andre🚐 23:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about this: [3] "Ẓemaḥ Dawid," published first at Prague, in 1592. It is divided into two parts, the first containing the annals of Jewish history, the second those of general history. The author consulted for the second part of his work the writings of Spangenberg, Laurentius Faustus, Hubertus Holtzius, Georg Cassino, and Martin Borisk. Though Gans's annals are very dry and have no great intrinsic value, they are memorable as the first work of this kind among the German Jews, who at that time appreciated historical knowledge but slightly. Indeed, in his preface to the second volume the author deemed it necessary to justify himself for having dealt with so profane a subject as the annals ofgeneral history, and endeavored to demonstrate that it was permitted to read history on Saturdays. The "Ẓemaḥ Dawid" passed through many editions. To the edition of Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1692, David ben Moses Rheindorf added a third part containing the annals of that century, which addition has been retained in later editions of the "Ẓemaḥ." The first part of Gans's work, and extracts from the second, were translated into Latin by Wilhelm Heinrich Vorst (Leyden, 1644). It was translated also into Judæo-German by Solomon Hanau (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1692). Andre🚐 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some Jews courageously explored new roads. The most eloquent of these, who came close to a genuinely historical mode of writing by contemporary standards, were Eliya Capsali, Joseph ha-Cohen, and David Ganz. Guedalia Ibn Yahia may be added to their ranks, although not without some reservations. By adopting the methods of ecclesiastical history, they tried to do what Eusebius and his followers had done, yet in a different way. They assigned a place to Jewish history within the framework imposed by the literary genre of history as a narrative of political and military deeds....... I would certainly agree with most of Yerushalmi's remarks on this point: like Joseph ha-Cohen, all these writers indeed extended their range far beyond previously accepted boundaries; all assigned prominence to post-biblical Jewish history; all certainly showed much interest in non-Jewish history, especially the history of contemporary peoples.36"[2] Andre🚐 07:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added him back based on Abraham David and the Bonfil source above. I believe Yerushalmi mentions him too. Andre🚐 00:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fox, Yaniv (2019). "Chronicling the Merovingians in Hebrew the Early Medieval Chapters of Yosef Ha-Kohen's Divrei Hayamim". Traditio. 74: 423–447. ISSN 0362-1529.
  2. ^ Bonfil, Robert (1988). "How Golden was the Age of the Renaissance in Jewish Historiography?". History and Theory. 27 (4): 78–102. doi:10.2307/2504998. ISSN 0018-2656.

Mobility characterized Jewry; transnational : Ruderman

Great cite along with some of the ones I was dumping in the first section (pan-Judaism, etc) that I just came across while reading Malkiel, David (2018). "Maharal and Italy. a Transnational Approach". La Rassegna Mensile di Israel. 84 (1/2): 15–46. ISSN 0033-9792. : Ruderman, Daṿid (2011). Early modern Jewry: a new cultural history. Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-15288-2. Mobility characterized early modern Jewry, a transnational approach. I already included this one in the list above, actually. But it's very relevant to what I'm reading now trying to track down this Gans stuff. So Gans actually interacts with Kepler and Brahe. Looking for a better source. Andre🚐 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wikiprojects

I informed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism of this page, since they seem active. Andre🚐 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same on 19 September. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Jewish historiography

@Andrevan: you have done some excellent work here. I am so pleased to see it. Our collaboration didn’t get off to the easiest of starts, but it seems it has been well worth it for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

Reflecting on it, it is strange to think that this subject wasn’t covered anywhere in our project until we stumbled into the topic.

Anyway, one quick comment on the structure. I noticed we no longer have a section on the history of Jewish historiography. I think it is an important distinction – most of these scholars wrote histories. The latter names wrote historiographies, which is a different category. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I agree it's a bit strange that there wasn't a single article pulling these threads together, but it's a bit of a "meta-topic." There are a number of articles on the various bits and pieces spread throughout many biographical articles, many of which come from some old public domain imports of the Jewish Encyclopedia and other similar sources from the early days of Wikipedia, so are due for revisiting in light of modern scholarship.
I actually think that these medieval and early 16th c. histories are analyzed as "works of historiography" if you look at how the difference sources refer to them, i.e. histories of history and analysis of historical sources. But I've been making a lot of big changes so let's catch up on them and discuss some of them, including the structure. It might make sense to separate the period starting with Yerushalmi into a separate section. I've added to a section called "Later 20th century: history of historiography", how's that? Andre🚐 21:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works well, thank you. The article is shaping up very well. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, so glad to hear it! Any thoughts you have and feedback are most welcome. Andre🚐 23:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing comment: this artcle indeed reads more like History of Jewish historiography (and I'd suggest renaming it to such title) rather than the comprehensive overview of "Modern Jewish historiography". For example, I don't see any part of the article which discusses the trends and views of modern Jewish historiography (I am somewhat familiar, for example, with the disagreemnts between Jewish and Polish historiographies - a topic that is not even alluded to in this article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure Onceawhile was suggesting the entire article be moved to that. That is mainly referring the latter section, though I agree, technically, this article could be called "history of Jewish historiograph(ies)" but, I'm not entirely sure what would be included in this article title that would be different from that one. Anyway, do you have some idea of the differences in Polish historiography that are worth mentioning here and what sources would be good to incorporate? I do have a few parts where Polish-Jewish historiography is quite relevant, particularly the source on the Podolian steppe stuff that I came across recently: Out of the Shtetl: Making Jews Modern in the Polish Borderlands [4] Andre🚐 04:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have yet an article on Polish historiography either. The topic I mentioned is rather vast and somewhat controversial. For some sources, see this query. For a specific example, see Home_Army#Jews (middle of the first paragraph). I'd also expect that we would find other notable cases - for example, I expect intersection with Ukrainian historiography to be similarly different and controversial, if not more so (see query). And this is just from "my ballpark", I'd expect Jewish and Arab historiography to be even more diverging... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andalusian Muslim and Arab historiography pre-1945 would be easy to write and few divergences or controversies with Jewish historiography. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a modern times phenomenon, as are the Shoah, Zionism, Palestinian/pan-Arab nationalism, etc. Jews and Muslims coexisted in the Old Yishuv for 100s of years. In most of recorded history, Jews and Muslims got along well and Sephardic Jewish writers trusted Averroes, ibn Khaldun, etc., who writes extensively and accepted Jewish history and presented it exceptionally[5] See Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, Social and cultural exchange in al-Andalus, etc. I agree that most historiography articles are red-links. As hopefully the work on this article shows, modern Jewish historiography really does start in the early modern and late medieval period, draws on a lot of European material from the Roman and Byzantine Empire, France, Spain, and later Italian citystates, and later a lot of Germany, UK and America (I'm researching the expulsion to resettlement UK period right now, and I have a few things I want to add). As far as Polish historiography during the interwar period, while I know it's controversial, I will confess it's not really my expertise or personal interest, but we certainly will need to flesh out the historiography of that period as I've been spending a lot more time on the Renaissance since it's more interesting and lesser-known. It's also kind of more exciting and not sad or tragic. But feel free to take a gander. We'll definitely have to add if not a new section, at least a few more paragraphs about WWII. Andre🚐 06:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following up to this, I assumed when you were talking about controversial Polish historiography you meant WWII - but there was an episode that I wasn't really thinking of in the 1648-1653, which I've added to the article now Modern_Jewish_historiography#Hannover. Andre🚐 06:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the Chmielnicki Uprising is a good example for an influential earlier event that AFAIK is indeed differently described by those three historiograpies (four perhaps if you include Russian). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is essentially the text I've written into the article. Andre🚐 10:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a sub-article on Historiography of the Holocaust would be a valuable addition to our encyclopaedia. A huge undertaking. Buidhe began part of it here: Historiography of the Holocaust in Slovakia.
On "History of Jewish historiography", that would be the second derivative of Jewish history. This article is intended to focus on the first derivative of Jewish history, albeit with a final section summarizing the second derivative. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure they can be fully treated separately - I feel like we are jumping back and forth between history and its reception, and the meta-commentary of scholars and references and reviews. I suppose a version can be rendered without any of the commentary on the history of the historians' views of history; or alternately, one could be written that shapes the change over time chronologically more directly. Anyway, what I'm finding is that someone like Yerushalmi had history that he wrote on the micro level, he also wrote historiographical studies that proposed a theory of understand for an entire era. For the more modern comprehensive texts they generally have their initial impact as well as the impact of the impact and revisions of the reviews. For older work it's even more complex, since there can be layers of echoes over thousands of years in some cases. Andre🚐 07:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly catching up

Well, the pace of editing on the page by Andrevan has been quite overwhelming for me, and it will take me some time to catch up to it. But the work that has been done here so far is a great accomplishment, and I want to commend Andrevan for it. Kudos! Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you to say :-) Andre🚐 03:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with warshy. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the amount of RS refs added to this page by Andrevan in the past two weeks or so is substantial, impressive! For me, it will all take some time to digest... Thank you, 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_Jewish_historiography&oldid=1184826405"