Jump to content

Talk:Judaism/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Judaica redirect

Judaica redirects here. There is no mention of it in this arcticle. It should be its own page or the word judaica should be mentioned Epson291 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Judaism is not the first monotheistic faith

Hinduism is a monotheistic faith and it existed earlier than Judaism. Kkrystian 15 October 15:53 /(UTC+1)

Hinduism is not monotheistic. The Smartha denomination is pantheistic, which is not really a form of monotheism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hindus believe in one God which they usually call Brahman or Ishvara. The many devas (Brahma, Vishnu) are just like angels in Christianity Kkrystian 15 October 15:53 /(UTC+1)
Hinduism is not montheistic, it is pantheistic. I'd argue that Christianity isn't legitimately monotheistic either, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Please go read WP:NOR. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hinduism is often considered to be Polytheistic (Pantheistic) because the Vedas describe a pantheon of many gods. But Hinduism is propery considered to be monotheistic because the Vedas describe one ultimate god that created everything. The religion therefore contains elements of both but should propery be considered to be a monotheistic faith. That said, the issue of mono/polytheism arises within Judaism which very strictly condemns idolatry and polytheism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.221.105 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2006.
I thought they considered them selves a "monoistic" religion as their Gods are essentially sides of the same 3 sided coin...

Although the Bible may claim that Abraham was the first monotheist religion, there is no archeological evidence for this. Their is no concrete proof, only faith in the word of the Bible. The origins of Judaism are a question of debate amongst archeologist and historians, with some arguing that in fact judaism was brought out of egypt during the exodus. They claim that Judaism was a offshoot and adaptation of Akenaton's religious reforms in egypt by a large group of Canaanites immigrants, who would later become known as the Hebrews. This would make Judaism the oldest SURVIVING monotheistic religion but NOT THE FIRST or simply the oldest. Contribution by J.Tabet 16 October

The article does not claim that it is the first monotheistic religion. It claims it is the first recorded monotheistic religion. Two key words here: First, "recorded," because of course in the long history of humanity it is conceivable that there were monotheistic religions before Judaism that simply were not recorded. Second, "religion" because we are talking not about the belief of one person, or even a group of people, but a belief that was institutionalized. The archeological evidence about what Akenaton believed is not entirely clear, but even if we grant that he believed that there is only one universal God, there is little evidence to support the claim that this belief became a religion that is to say institutionalized. On the contrary, whatever he believed seems to have died with him. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hinduism is not a religion, but a group of multiple related religions and sects, some of which are old, recorded, and monotheistic. Andries 11:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
LISTEN HERE, Yiddishkiet is the first monotheisitic religion. Hinduism isn't monotheistic. Period. --Shaul avrom 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would qualify your assertion. There are monotheistic strains of Hinduism. But there's no evidence that they predate Judaism. marbeh raglaim 23:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if Akhenaten's belief died with him, the fact remains that he allegedly promulgated a religion, even if it was a religion of one man. The fact is, it is a religion on record. (Institutionalization does not a religion make. Rituals and beliefs do a religion make.) Therefore, it is uncertain whether Judaism is, indeed, the first recorded monotheistic religion. Furthermore, Hinduism is a religious patchwork that might actually constitute more than one religion when looked closely enough at. Yes, there are some monotheistic versions of Hinduism, as well as polytheistic and pantheistic versions (probably an important reason for Buddhism's nontheism when it emerged from the Vedic tradition). The polytheistic versions may well stem from the oldest traditions, and my guess is that monotheism arose in ancient Israel long before it arose in ancient India. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That being said, Akhenaton probably had little influence on the founders of Judaism. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, Hinduism is the paradigmatic polytheistic religion. On the other hand, at the deepest level when one understands the spirit and the text, there is a distinct monotheism at it's heart. All beings are manifestations of the same consciousness. Insofar as the hindus create statues of different gods, and worship them separately, it is manifestly polytheistic.

Is Judaism Monotheistic? On the one hand it is the foundation of monotheism, but on the other hand does monotheism mean there is only one god, or that the children of Israel should only worship one god? The second is a more defensible position, there is plentiful evidence in the text of the Hebrew Bible that the authors believed in the existence of other gods, but in the primacy of El/Adoshem teh god of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. RBERLOW

I have an open mind here, but I do not know of any scholars (sociologists of religion, anthropologists of religion, historians of religion) who do not understand religion to be an institution. Rituals and beliefs are essential parts of this institution and my point is that rituals and beliefs must be institutionalized before they are considered (again, by all of the scholars I know of) to be a religion (Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Eliade, Buber all come to mind immediately but I know there are more). But if you know of any scholars of religion who define religion as something uninstitutionalized, by all means, share it with us! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"LISTEN HERE, Yiddishkiet is the first monotheisitic religion. Hinduism isn't monotheistic. Period. --Shaul avrom 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)"

I revert to my previous statement Hinduism (at least as far as I am aware, If I am wrong please let me know) is Mono-istic where Shiva and Vishnu are Manifestations of Brahman. each having a unique personality and powers, but being a single being, like a deific level case of sane schizophrenia. Avatar of Nothing 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Avatar of Nothing

Messianic Judaism

Koavf, I reverted your edit. I think you'd need to find a good source acknowledging Messianic Judaism as an alternative form of Judaism, rather than as something quite different. Until we have that source, it's better staying in the section it's in. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The following may be helpful when considering the discusion below. The word 'Jew' is an abbreviation of 'Judaen' which means 'a person from Judaea'. Judaea had a political existence in the ancient world but, like the rest of the ancient world, its political existence has been lost to the passage of time. The modern world-religion of Judaism is based on the religion of Ancient Judaea which, in turn, is based on the religion of the ancient Hebrew nation. A modern person, who self-identifies as 'a Jew', is deriving his/er identity from the notional claims of their supposed religion. The emphasis must be stressed on the word 'notional' (rather than 'literal') as obviously it is impossible to literally originate from Judaea and therefore literally be a Judaen or 'a Jew'. In the same way, it is impossible to literally be a Babylonian or a Roman. The claim is 'notional' rather than 'literal'. Similarly, claims to be descended from, or related to, scriptural figures (such as Abraham or Ishmael) are notional rather than literal and originate in the notional claims of religion. It is a question of religion and religious beliefs/claims rather than a question of ethnicity.80.177.221.105 12:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


===>Who is a Jew? The fact that Messianics self-identify as Jews and (some percentage) are ethnic Jews makes them Jews. To say they are not is POV. I certainly don't object to controversy being mentioned (in point of fact, I mention said controversy in my edit), but there is still no justification for taking out any reference to them in this appropriate section. Why should syncretic Jews, Karaites, and Samaritans be in this section, but not Messianics? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the answer to my comment on Talk:Messianic Judaism where I asked why the article focused exclusively, for no apparent reason, on a single candidate for Messiah when there had been so many more recent candidates worthy of mention (See Jewish Messiah claimants). If we mentioned them all in appropriate (chronological) order, any mention of Jesus on the Messianic Judaism page would of course be way down towards the bottom. I personally don't see why there should be any particular focus on Jesus of Nazareth when so many other candidates were of importance in Jewish history. But the folks controlling the page rejected this argument. They refused to accept any reference to Messiah candidates other than Jesus -- not Shabbetai Tzvi, not Jacob Frank, not Menachem Mendel Schneerson, not others. They said:
The term Messianic Judaism has a very specific application to an emerging NRM. It has a recognized scholarly definition, and people outside the movement who have no desire to affiliate with it should not be miscategorized within it. --AuntieMormom 23:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well stated. Messianic Jews are specifically those of Jewish ethnicity who have come to a "completion of faith" by receiving the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua/Jesus. Messianic congregations usually also include Messianic Goyim/Gentiles, but the object of their worship is the same: Yeshua haMashiach. Shalom u brachot! -SHLAMA 00:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The same justification "Messianics" give for deleting references to alternative definitions of what constitutes "Messianic", answers your question here about "Judaism". Judaism, just like Messianic Judaism, has established ethnologic definitions, and an outsider can't simply substitute their own definitions that are inconsistent with them. --Shirahadasha 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Messianics are Jews Of course there is an ethnic definition, and that would exclude Samaritans, Karaites, and JewBus - in short, the rest of the list! Why exclude Messianics? This question still hasn't been addressed for some reason. Also, asking why Jesus would be an exceptional Messianic claimant is a ridiculous question of course; the messianic movement around his person still exists and is practiced by some 2.3 billion people in every nation in the world. This is absurd. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 04:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "The fact that Messianics self-identify as Jews and (some percentage) are ethnic Jews makes them Jews". No one argues with that. The article clearly says that even those who convert are Jews. The question is, however, is "Messianic Judaism" considered a formulated philosophy of Judaism, or more accurately, a formulated philosophy of Christianity that some Jews convert to.

===>Messianics as Jews If humanistic Judaism and syncretic belief systems are included as philosophies of Judaism, how could Messianic Judaism not be? Furthermore, Christianity itself began as and will always continue to be a philosophy of Judaism. To an objective third-party, one might claim that Messianics are syncretists between two different religious traditions (Judiasm and Christianity), in which case it seems only reasonable to include it with other syncretists. The worshippers within the Messianic movement don't see it as syncretistic, of course, and are arguing that they are complimentary forms of worship to God (YHWH), which would make it a Jewish movement/denomination/philosophy. I still don't see any justification for removing it from this section. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "Furthermore, Christianity itself began as and will always continue to be a philosophy of Judaism." Here you are betraying your real bias. The bottom line is that no matter how Christianity had its genesis, it is considered a separate religion from Judaism in an encyclopedia. A religion is obviously defined by what it believes concerning certain fundamentals. Christianity originally separated itself and became an entity through its acceptance of Jesus as the son etc. If a Jew accepts Jesus, he is no different than the original Christians- Jews who accepted Jesus. That acceptance made them Christians in the encyclopedia and not, as you would have it, the practicers of a philosophy of Judaism.

===>Bias? And you play your hand by avoiding the blatant contradiction that I pointed out: other Jews which could be called syncretists are mentioned in this same section, but you don't object to that. For some reason, which goes unexplained, Messianics are excluded while any other view within Judaism is included. Also, I didn't intend to give you my take on the issue or who I think is a Jew, rather I gave the defense that would be given by Messianics themselves. What I did was contrast two views: some neutral third party calling them syncretists and someone within the movement himself who would not consider Judaism and Christianity to be contradictory faiths. In either case, the argument would be to keep them where they are in the article, with other syncretists (Jubus) or other interpretations of Judaism in and of itself (Karaites). You've still not addressed this fundamental contradiction. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Yes,Bias! I can only repeat what I said before, "If a Jew accepts Jesus, he is no different than the original Christians- Jews who accepted Jesus. That acceptance made them Christians in the encyclopedia and not, as you would have it, the practicers of a philosophy of Judaism." It seems that you do not disagree that "Messianic Judaism" is essentially a Christian movement. And although other forms of "Judaism" are mentioned, such as humanistic etc., those obviously don't claim to be the true interpretations of historical Judaism, hence the lack of objection to their inclusion. You, however, are attempting to misrepresent a Christian movement as Jewish.

===>Who decides who is a Jew? Are you the arbitrator of who is a Christian or a Jew? Or if the two are mutually exclusive, as you're implying? At what point did Jewish Christians go from being Jews to being Christians? How are this immutable categories? Are Frankists Jews? Jubus? How did you decide this? Of course Messianic Judaism is an essentially Christian movement. It is also an essentially Jewish movement. Notice that you avoided the specific examples that I brought into question (e.g. Karaites) and addressed something else (humanistic) to support your argument. Clearly, Karaites do claim to be the true interpretations of historical Judaism. Do you object to their inclusion? Apparently not. You are attempting to misrepresent a Jewish movement as exclusively Christian. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail

===>Not you, thats for sure The bottom line is that the encyclopedia has two separate categories- Judaism and Christianity. These are treated as two separate religions regardless of your POV. You yourself admit that "Of course Messianic Judaism is an essentially Christian movement." Well then, since this and all encyclopedias treat them as separate religions, the Jews for J movement belongs in the Christianity section. Until, of course, you can answer how come they differ from the founders of Christianity. As far as Karaites, listen carefully, they do not have any fundamental beliefs of what is recognized as some other religion.205.201.150.62 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Justin, please see the intense discussion going on at talk:Messianic Judaism. According to a plethora of WP:RS it resembles Christianity more than Judaism, and if anything is much more a new religious movement than it is an offshoot of Judaism. Every other branch of Judaism that I know of, all flavors of Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and even Reconstructionist, do not attribute any religious significance to Jesus; it is Christianity that does so. So, in my opinion, the discussion of Messianic Judaism more belongs together with Christianity and Judaism rather than Alternative Judaism. -- Avi 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all beliefs that combine elements of Judaism with other religions should have their own section, neither alternative Judaism, nor Judaism and Christianity, etc. So I've created a new subsection for them. -- Avi 04:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>POV

  • Avi, I appreciate your efforts at a good faith restructuring of the article, but it retains the problem of POV regarding Messianics. To say that they are syncretists at all is itself POV. Furthermore, it presses the issue of how/when Christianity became a separate phenomenon than Judaism and assumes (falsely?) that the two are mutually exclusive.
  • As for the comments of the anonymous ip, you're using the same cheap bait-and-switch you did before. I never said that Karaites have fundamental beliefs of what is recognized as some other religion. That claim is irrelevant to what I wrote. You're ignoring very direct and simple questions and deliberately conflicating the features of one movement with another to try to prove your point. Needless to say, I'm not convinced.
  • I've left the article as is, but put a POV template on it. I'll create a section in the discussion outlining my concerns below so they can be discussed more systematically. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>POV. You apparently misunderstood my argument. Jews for J is different than both humanistic movement and the Karaite movement. Both of those do not have any fundamental beliefs of what is recognized as some other religion and humanism also doesn't claim to be historical anything, if the Karaites or the humanists would turn around and say that they believed in Mohammed, believe me they would swiftly be edited out and put in a section titled "Judaism and Islam". Again your argument is based on saying that Judaism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. This is your POV, however this and all encyclopedias that I'm aware of, consider them two separate categories. To think of it fairly, without the bias we all have, try to compare it with to the theoretical idea of Jews who accept Mohammed and claim to be representing not Islam but Judaism. 205.201.150.62 04:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>You misunderstand me My argument does not rely on Christianity and Judaism being the same, similar, syncretic, or different. All I'm saying is the adherents within this movement say it isn't. To say they are wrong is POV. Also, you are (deliberately?) assuming that Jews for Jesus is the same thing as the Messianic movement. To confuse the two either shows an ignorance on your part or a deliberate conflating to try to discredit the entire movement by associating it with a particularly controversial group. Not all Messianics have some kind of association with Jews for Jesus; in fact, most don't. Furthermore, your analogy of Jews that accept Mohammed and claim to be representing Judaism and not Islam is bankrupt; Messianics claim to be representing Judaism by representing Christianity. And in truth, Christianity itself began as (if it is not still today) a Jewish movement in its theology, community, language, and practice. If you lived in first century Palestine, you would consider the Christians to be an odd group of Jews, similar to, but different from the Pharisees and Sadducees. There would be no clear division between the two, and your argument rests on there being at some point in some way a definitive break between the two; you haven't established this, and the scope of the article doesn't allow us to say when and how Christianity became wholly separate from Judaism (if it is at all.) -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 04:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>I understand you Again, to be fair, imagine there was a movement exactly like Jews for J (and I use that term only to avoid writing Messianic Judaism, which I believe a misnomer), but in a Muslim version. Let us say that they claimed to be representing true Judaism by representing Islam. It would be obvious to both me and you, I hope, that they would fall under the category "Muslims". Why do you say this is different? Perhaps you would say because Christianity began as a twist on Judaism. If anything, that makes things worse, because all encyclopedias treat Christianity as separate from Judaism even with that. Again, why do you say that the Messianics should be considered Judaism, more than all Christianity? If you really believe that all Christianity is true Judaism, than thats fine. But the encyclopedia treats them as two separate religions. One accepts Jesus, and one doesn't. 205.201.150.62 05:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Jews for Mohammed The point that you bring up is entirely germane: Christianity began as a twist on Judaism, whereas no other religious tradition did. But, assuming that there was some Islamo-Jewish movement, I would not object to it being here alongside Jubus and Jewish Renewal and the other syncretists; I was arguing for their inclusion the entire time. These hypothetical Jews for Mohammed would certainly be Muslims, but would they consequently cease to be Jews? Clearly, their ethnicity doesn't change - they are descended from the same people and are still Jews in at least a sense regardless of their convictions. I've no problem with treating Christianity and Judiams as separate things, but the claim that they are mutually exclusive or cannot overlap or are inherently different phenomena hasn't been proven on this page and shouldn't have to be. The fact is that Messianics were Jews brought up within the mainstream Jewish traditions and came to find fulfillment of Tanakh propechy in the person of Yehsua. At what point did they cease to be Jews? Some of them still eat kosher, they still march the Torah around, they still sing in Hebrew, they still recite the Shema, they still celebrate Purim, they still wear tallits. Most importantly, they still self-identify as Jews. Wikipedia, as a neutral-point-of-view encyclopedia has no right to claim that they aren't Jews. We can simply discuss the views of other Jews, third parties, and the Messianics themselves (quotes with sources, blah blah.) I personally made an edit that is similar on the Christian denomination article. In that, I included groups far outside the mainstream of Christian faith and worship (Moonies, Santeria, etc.) not because I personally think they are legitimate forms of Christianity or that they are in any way equal to any other faith in the larger Christian tradition, but because if it was not for the mainstream Christian traditions, there would not have been Jehovah's Witnesses and Swedenborgians. If it was not for Judaism there would not and could not be Messianics (or Christians, for that matter.) For what it's worth, I am not trying to convince anyone that all Christianity is true Judaism, nor do I personally hold that conviction. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>You are confusing Jews and Judaism Please notice that there are two separate articles, one referring to the ethnicity Jews, and one referring exclusively to what is known as Judaism. Whether the jews who believe in Jesus are still Jews is not relevant to this article which speaks about the religion Judaism. What is relevant is whether their philosophy is a philosophy of Judaism, or more accurately a philosophy and variant of Christianity, as it seems we both agree. 205.201.150.62 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>The Oldest monotheistic religion? You gotta be kiddin' cuz I know that Zoroaster was the first prophet who introduced the oneness of God, hence Zoroasterian is indeed the most ancient or the first monotheistic religion.Sorkhadem (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

===>Yiddishkiet is the oldest monotheistic religion. We predate Zoroaster by almost 2,000 years. We were monotheists during sumerian and babylonian times, not to mention phonecian, assyrian, chaldean and persian times. --Shaul avrom 14:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC) ===>Zoroastrianism is said to be the oldest monotheist religion among the remaining ones.

The phrase "Orthodox Judaism" is used in more than one way

Earlier, I had written that many Orthodox Jews simply assume that all non-Reform Jews of this era, Sephardic or not, rigorously followed Orthodox practice. There is little reason to assume that this is so. This is history by assertion, instead of by providing documentation. Steve (Slr) and I were asking that grand claims (i.e. all Jews always observed Orthodox Judaism) be sourced, and presented in accord with our NPOV policy. I also pointed out that one must carefully define one's terms. RK 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Shykee responded by writing:

this is an absolutely incredible statement. Are you familiar with all the persecution and killings of Jews who refused to convert to Christianity? Do you imagine they were dying for something they didn't believe in? Are you familiar with the thousands of responsa dealing with questions from Jewish communities concerning Jewish law? My friend, Fiddler-on-the-Roof type thinking is exactly that- fiction not history. Shykee 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Shykee says that many Jews were murdered because they would not convert to Christianity. Sure. But how does this prove that all Jews prior to the early 1800s were Orthodox Jews, or that all Jews prior to the early 1800s followed Judaism's oral law and strictly followed Judaism's codes of Jewish law, like Mishneh Torah or the Shulkhan Arukh? I don't follow the logic. And I don't understand why he is criticising a movie. Steve (Slr) and I are simply noting that when writing an encylopedia one must base one's statements on sources. We can't just say "Orthodox Jews told me that every Jew has always been Orthodox", and present this in the article. We can't just assume that since many Jews were murdered, then they must all have been Orthodox. Also, remember Christians often persecuted non-religious Jews, not just religious ones. By any chance have you started to read the articles in the Encyclopedia Judaica (many of its articles were written by Orthodox rabbis.) RK 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote, I would recommend first getting a familiarity with the primary sources, and then using an encyclopedia as a secondary source. Also, let me point out that this tangent is irrelevant to the discussion and you are setting up a straw man to knock down. It really does not matter if some Jews were lax in their observance. The point is that the only formulated philosophy of Judaism before the 1800's held the same fundamental beliefs as Orthodoxy. That is the discussion. [In my POV, you are wrong anyway, and if you don't see any significance in the fact that there were many, many, many times that Jews died for their beliefs, and only extremely rare times that they didn't, then we don't have any common starting ground.]Shykee 17:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
First off, I am familiar with the primary sources. The problem is that you seem ignorant of the primary sources that are critical to this issue: Primary sources about the real-life history of the Jewish people. Contrary to what you may have been told, primary sources exist outside of the Talmud and Shulkhan Arukh. Real historians read the actual letters, diaries, and wills of people in lived in Jewish history. Real historians read documents from towns, synagogues, and kingdoms. And these primary sources are absolutely critical in a reliable construction of any society. You seem absolutely unaware of primary, secondary or even tertiary sources on the subject. In fact, you seem not to even notice that Jews actually left historical traces of their existence which can be read and studied. RK
I am glad you say are familiar with primary sources. If you had actually quoted those sources, instead of consistently referring to the "Encyclopedia Judaica", then the unfortunate impression you created could have been avoided. I am not sure of how you are aware of my knowledge, or lack, since you never actually quoted any source other than an encyclopedia.Shykee 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
I have absolutely no idea what "straw man" you imagine I am setting up. Your charge is not only incorrect, it is vague and hard to understand.
I'll make it extremely simple to understand. Your straw man is that you are debating an issue (whether Jews were lax) that has nothing to do with the question. As I wrote, the real question is, do you deny that the only formulated philosophy of Judaism before the 1800's was fundamentally that of Orthodoxy?Shykee 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
Shykee, the last point is the most critical - you still totally fail to understand Wikipedia policy. You constantly confuse your religious beliefs with documentable historical facts, and you fail to understand our iviolable NPOV policy. You may sincerely believe that "the only formulated philosophy of Judaism before the 1800's held the same fundamental beliefs as Orthodoxy". But here on Wikipedia we simply don't care; we don't win arguments by loudly repeating religious beliefs. In our article we may only say "According to Orthodox Jews, the only formulated philosophy of Judaism before the 1800's held the same fundamental beliefs as Orthodoxy." or something like that. Until you grasp this point you will not be making acceptable additions.
Unfortunately for the tone and civility of this debate, you have misunderstood my point. I ask for sources. As I wrote, from my readings of the founders of Conservative Judaism, although they claimed to be resurrecting true Judaism of long ago, none had the Chutzpah to claim that their own parents and grandparents believed as they did. Perhaps their more removed and ignorant students did claim that even before the 1800's Judaism did not demand belief in the Oral and Written Torah. If so, provide these sources and no matter how ignorant, it has a place in the article. Shykee 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Shykee writes "I am not missing the point. If no one denies that the only Judaism extent believed in living according to Halacha as divine, then they were defacto Orthodox. After all, that is the dividing line between those Orthodox and those not- acceptance of the Written and Oral Torah as divine."

Shykee, we have pointed out that you are using words in a way which do not match the way that others use the same words. Every time you miss this point, you end up arguing in cicrcles. Your above argument is similar to the kind of argument we often see on the internet. Sunni Muslims claim that all Muslims were always always defacto Sunni Muslims, and if any other kind existed they crossed the dividing line between true Islam and false Islam. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that all Christians were originally defacto Jehovahs Witnessed and if any other kind existed they crossed the dividing line between true Christianity and false Chritianity. You are using the same logical fallacy, from an Orthodox point of view. Wikipedia policy has been very insistent on this point for many years: Such reasoning is never allowed within Wikipedia articles. We do not present this No true Scotsman argument, as it is one of the most famous logical fallacies. At best, we can present it as the point of view of a particular religious group. I really must stress that if you want to contribute to articles on Jewish history, then first you must take the time to seriously learn about Jewish history, from a variety of sources. RK 16:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Who is this royal "We" in your comment who so sagaciously and wisely "really must stress" that others must learn about Jewish history? As to the issue, I ask you one question- if someone says, I believe and practice the Written and Oral Torah as of divine origin, would he be considered Orthodox? Modern, Haredi, whatever? Even if there were Jews who were not observant before the 1800's, they did not constitute a defined philosophy of Judaism. Are there any writings at all reflecting something other than Orthodox Judaism ? No. Indeed one of us is attempting to re-write history, but it is not I. As far as your disturbing comparison to "Fundamentalist Muslims", I can only respond, why stoop so low? Shykee 17:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
First off, please stop the sarcasm. Secondly, I was very clear who "we" refers to. I explicitly stated that "we" include historians of Judaism, scholars in Conservative Judaism, scholars in Reform Judaism, scholars in Traditional (UTJ) Judaism, and even some Modern Orthodox scholars. As for the rest of your verbal assault, I can only repeat what I wrote above. You are not proving facts - you are merely demonstrating your religious beliefs. RK
Your comment reminds me of the guy who dropped the ball and then loudly complained when it bounced. The sarcasm is an unfortunate by-product of your patronizing and inappropriate suggestions to others to "seriously learn about Jewish history". And your use of the royal "we" was part of that inappropriate tone. Your sentence " we have pointed out that you are using words in a way...", belies any disingenuous attempt to say that the "we" was referring to "historians". Shykee 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
Shykee, as for your belief that you are being compared to Muslim fundamentalists, that only means that you see a similarity in your argument to the arguments that they make. I was giving examples of arguments that are not allowed on Wikipedia (and this is to the benefit of both secular historians and religious Jews.) If you still fail to understand my point, it is because you have not yet understood our inviolable NPOV policy. You must learn what this means, and stop viewing a description of how to follow it as a personal attack. RK
Please, the schoolchild's trick of using an extreme example ("Fundamentalist Muslims") and then triumphantly saying that you were only comparing the approach but you absolutely did not mean to imply guilt by association, is insulting to intelligent people. Shykee 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Shirahadasha writes about my earlier comments: You are saying here that Orthodox Judaism was not "founded" in the 1800s. You say this because you believe it was a continuation of a "slow ossif[ication]" that had existed "from the era of the Rishonim up until the enlightment." Thus, your argument supports the view that Orthodox Judaism wasn't founded in the 1800s, which is all that was being debated."

No. People still fail to understand that the phrase "Orthodox Judaism" is used in a different sense by different people. Every time you miss the point you start arguing in circles. Let me clarify for you and Shykee once again:

  • Orthodox Jews claim that all Jews were always "Orthodox Jews", and that anything alse a Jew practiced was heresy.
    • Orthodox Jews also claim that until the enlightenment, nearly all Jews followed the oral law, the responsa, and the codes of Jewish law. Orthodox Jews refer to such practices as "Orthodox Judaism."
  • In contrast, most modern day scholars of Judaism, and some Modern Orthodox Jews, and all non-Orthodox Jews, use the phrase "Orthodox Judaism" in a much more precise way:
    • "Orthodox Judaism" is defined by them as one particular form of traditional rabbinic Judaism, a form that developed in response to the enlightenment. Orthodox Jews are characterized by developing a form of Judaism that is more restrictive in its practices and its theology than the forms of rabbinic Judaism that existed previously.
    • Modern day scholars of Judaism, and some Modern Orthodox Jews, and all non-Orthodox Jews, do not refer to forms of religious Judaism prior to the enlightenment as "Orthodox". They refer to it as "rabbinical Judaism", "halakhic Judaism" or "historical Judiasm".
    • They openly admit that historical Judaism was based on the oral law, responsa, codes of Jewish law, etc., but they do not demand that it be labeled as "Orthodox". Such a terminology is viewed as a historical anachronism, and is viewed as misleading.
    • They also admit that we have no proof that most Jews, in practice, followed the oral law, etc. Rather, it was a theoretical ideal that the Jewish community held as a goal, but we have little data on how widespread actual observance was. In some places and time rigourous observance was common, in other places and time, less common.
    • They recognize that Orthodoxy is not monolithic, and various forms exist. Others religious Jewish forms of response to the enlightenment and emancipation included Positive-historical Judaism, later to become Conservative Judaism, and also Reform Judaism. Other non-religious reactions to the enlightenment included assimilation, agnosticism and atheism, etc.

These disagreements are especially distressing to me since I have repeatedly been trying to agree with many things stated by Shykee, Shirhadasha, and other Orthodox Jewish contributors to this forum. I openly and repeatedly agree with their claims that previous to the enlightenment and emancipation, Judaism was based on the oral law, the responsa, and the codes of Jewish law! (And to go further, I personally believe that not only was this true, but that it also was correct, and should be the basis for Judaism even today!) There are so many things that Orthodox Jewish contributors say here, and in other articles, that I agree with. Its kind of funny how it brings up the old Jewish joke, "A Jew can't take "yes" for an answer!" All I am trying to point out is that different groups use the same words in different ways, for the reasons stated above, and we need to take this into account when writing the article. RK 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not be distressed, no one has misunderstood you. Indeed, your argument is so clearly transparent, that although hard to understand in the sense that you are splitting hairs, it is easy to understand the clear POV inherent in it. You, without citation, redefine Orthodoxy to mean something else than it does. Here is a definition from the Oxford dictionary - "A major branch within Judaism that teaches strict adherence to rabbinical interpretation of Jewish law and its traditional observances." What you are really describing when you say that some Jews became more restrictive, is Haredi Judaism, not Orthodoxy. Do you mean to imply that the Modern Orthodox of today, or of the 1950's. had stricter observances than the Judaism of before the 1800's? The bottom line is that if someone accepts the Halacha (including the Oral Torah) as of divine origin, they are considered Orthodox, regardless of laxness of observance or usage of every "Kulah" in the responsa. Shykee 17:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
Shykee, I am warning you to stop the personal attacks on me as being dishonest ("transparent"). You still imagine that I am merely describing my own point of view. Leave me out of this. I am describing the views of historians of Judaism, scholars in Conservative Judaism, scholars in Reform Judaism, scholars in Traditional (UTJ) Judaism, and even some Modern Orthodox scholars. Every time you turn this into a personal attack against me, it is a tacit admission that you are unknowledgeable on this subject, and are unprepared to add information in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Shykee, even if I dropped dead today the arguments by the above mentioned scholars would still exist. Stop trying to make the issue about me, and stick to the point: Finding NPOV ways to build an accurate encyclopedia. RK 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir, it would be advisable to learn how to differentiate between an attack on yourself, and an attack on your argument. No matter how personally passionate editors are about their POV, they should always remember that the discussion is about the issues. Know that it is the intention of myself, and I am sure you and the other editors in this discussion, to only arrive at the best possible article. Again, please respond to my comment. To quote myself "You, without citation, redefine Orthodoxy to mean something else than it does. Here is a definition from the Oxford dictionary - "A major branch within Judaism that teaches strict adherence to rabbinical interpretation of Jewish law and its traditional observances." What you are really describing when you say that some Jews became more restrictive, is Haredi Judaism, not Orthodoxy. Do you mean to imply that the Modern Orthodox of today, or of the 1950's. had stricter observances than the Judaism of before the 1800's?"Shykee 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Traditional Judaism is normative, not descriptive. It describes what the tradition believes G-d wants of people, whether they do it or not. We have from good authority that they often didn't, from the time of the Golden Calf on. Jeremiah and Elijah tell us that the majority of Jews in Biblical times spent their time making cakes for the Queen of Heaven and sacrificing to Ba'al. Ezra reported that intermarriage was rampant. The Talmud is rife with reports of the lax observance of the amei ha'aretz. There may never have been a time when the majority of Jews observed a majority of the mitzvot. There's no reason to assume people in the time of the Acharonim were more righteous than people were in the time of Moshe and the Navi'im. But this doesn't affect Judaism's definition or the status of the mitzvot in the slightest. Traditional Judaism is a religion and way of life based on authority. It is not a democracy. It makes decisions by people charged with bearing the tradition and take that charge seriously, who attempt to acertain G-d's will. It doesn't make decisions by taking polls. --Shirahadasha 18:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But see my above point to Shykee. My personal opinions have no relevance here. RK 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

{Did I mention I hate edit conflicts :) }RK, Shykee has hitthe nail on the head. The question is NOT one of levels of observance, it is of PHILOSOPHY of observance. What we call Orthodoxy is the natural and inevitable successor to the Rabbinic Judaism, which is the natural and inevitable successor to Pharisee Judaism. Actually, it can be posited that all modern branches of Judaism, with the exception of Karaitism and Samaritanism, come from Rabbinic/Pharisee Judaism. Even if 90% of the people did not adhere to the strictures, it was not because they had fundemental differences with hermaneutics or legalistic exegesis, it was because they were not interested in observance--too hard, not fun, not enough money, whatever. It was the emancipation that was the genesis of the concept that a JEW and JUDAISM (which really only had ONE definition then) could be separated. I am reading Rabi Sacks’ excellent book Traditional Alternatives again, (as an aside, I am being pursuaded that the Boyarin-type information does belong in the article; although too much weight is given to Boyarin himself here. He also quotes Buber as saying the knesses yisrael was destroyed by the emancipation as no longer were Jews “a single entity standing before G-d” (Sacks 1989 p. 30). I hope to rewrite/expand that part of the article, eventually.) and while I haven't gotten too far in, I remember vaguely from my last perusal (in 1991) that he goes through this as well. -- Avi 18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi, you claim "What we call Orthodoxy is the natural and inevitable successor to the Rabbinic Judaism, which is the natural and inevitable successor to Pharisee Judaism". Avi, I think you totally missed the point. What you say is only your opinion. Other people have different opinions. Wikipedia demands an NPOV policy. RK 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two issues here: first, the article must make a clear distinction between normative Judaism (what Jewish leadership claimed) and actual Jewish belief and practice. We can probably all agree that until relatively recently normative Judaism was based on Rabbinic Judaism. However, as Trachtenberg's work suggested, this does not mean that all or even most Jews shared the Rabbis values. I am not saying they rejected the Rabbis. I am saying these are two different questions, two different kinds of claims, and the article should be clear about this. Second, the article must be based on research. Above, Shykee recommends "first getting a familiarity with the primary sources, and then using an encyclopedia as a secondary source." Although well-intentioned, this violates our policies. We should not be basing this article on primary sources, we should be basing it on secondary sources. Also, I think it is very very very bad practice for an encyclopedia to rely on another encyclopedia or dictionary as a source. As people working on an encyclopedia we can turn to OED or EJ or EB as starting points for our resource. But what is the point of just repeating what other encyclopedias and dictionaries - which, by the way, may not adhere to our policies - in writing our own article? We might as well tell people "Well, really do not read our article, just go to the source - the dictionary or encyclopedia we drew on." No, there are many books and articles out there, some written by clergy and theologians, others by sociologists and historians, and we soulpd be looking at those books as a basis for this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you and I am sure you are not recommending not having a familiarity with the primary sources. Although Wikipedia mandates using secondary sources for interpretation, it would be very sad indeed if the editors were essentially ignorant of the primary sources. Also, I hope I am not wrong in saying that you are rebutting only user:RK. It was not this side of the discussion that referred people to the "Encyclopedia Judaica" as a proof that Halacha has become more severe.
As far as sourcing Joshua Trachtenberg, I'd like to quote you if I may, "as Trachtenberg's work suggested, this does not mean that all or even most Jews shared the Rabbis values..." Hold on, forgive me the interruption of your quote, but I cannot let a mischaracterization as big as that pass- "they didn't share the Rabbi's values", you say. Excuse me but I have read that book, which nowhere implies any such drastic thing. That some Jews were superstitious and the rabbis were forced to incorporate certain elements of folklore into Judaism- that is his entertaining (in my opinion) story. In any case I am sure I am not alone in thinking that Trachtenberg's book, amusing as it may be, should not be held important enough to redefine Judaism in Wikipedia, an article that is considered a core topic. Even if some accept the book as the unvarnished truth, it certainly doesn't relate to the question of whether Orthodoxy was "founded" in the 1800's as a previously unformulated philosophy of Judaism. Shykee 19:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

As to your first comments - you are right: I wasn't arguing against any one editor, I was making a general point about our policy. As for trachtenberg, you are wrong to write "that Trachtenberg's book, amusing as it may be, should not be held important enough to redefine Judaism in Wikipedia" because the issue is not "defining" Judaism. We editors of Wikipedia simply cannot define Judaism at all, to do so would be to violate our NOR policy. Now, some people have defined Judaism, and we should include their definitions in the article properly sourced. Others would not try to define Judaism but would rather say that at various times and places Jews have shared different beliefs and practices, and the task of a sociologist or historian of Judaism is not to define Judaism but to chart those varying beliefs and practices. These views should also be represented in the article, properly sourced. To your final point, about whether Orthodoxy was or was not founded, I provided some sources ssuggesting it was founded in the 1800s. I know that there are those who view Orthodoxy as having existed prior to the formation of any organized movement. We still need sources - secondary sources - that say this that we can cite in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Slrubenstein's suggestion to define Orthodox Judaism using a descriptive vs. a normative approach (what self-identifying Orthodox Jews actually did or do vs. what rabbinical authorities say they should do): This has across-the-board implications, as WP articles on Judaism currently use a normative rather than a descriptive approach in many places. If a change of approach is desired, shouldn't it be done consistently? For example, consider the 2001National Jewish Population Survey: Conservative (pdf) figures, which indicate that (for example) 26% of self-identified Conservative Jews and 30% of Conservative synagogue members keep kosher at home. If we we're going to be descriptive, shouldn't we be using these poll numbers, rather than statements by the CJLS etc., to define what Conservative Judaism is and does? If we're simply charting what people believe and practice, shouldn't we throw out most of the current Conservative Judaism article, which is based almost exclusively on the normative POV of organized Conservative rabbis, and use descriptive statements about what Conservative Jews actually believe and do based on these polls? My personal view is that we should define all the denominations normatively, by what their authority figures say they should be, but add descriptive content indicating to what extent members of each denomination actually believe or practice what their authority figures say. --Shirahadasha 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, to be clear: I am not for deleting accounts of the normative view, or normative approaches, only for adding descriptive accounts. And yes, I agree this should be across the board. But let me further point out that while this article is short on descriptive information, I have not blanked the page or nominated it for deletion. I beg you to recall that wikipedia is a work in progress. We start with the assumption that all Wikipedia articles are imperfect, incomplete. This article is, and yes so is the Conservative one. Let us encourage people to add more descriptive information to this article AND to the ones on Conservative and Reform Judaism and various groups of Christians and Muslims and Hindus and republicans and Democrats (or Labor and Likudniks) too! To repeat, this does not mean deleting the normative definition. And I have NO objection to providing normative definitions here. However, I do believe that to comply with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and [{Wikipedia: Cite sources]], when we provide a normative definition we should state whose definition (individual or group) this is, according to whom, when it was proposed, accepted, or gained currency, and provide citations. Surely this is an uncontroversial view? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


If I may, I'd like to summarize the discussion so far. There seem to be two points of contention that are unrelated.

1) Whether the article should state, unequivocally, that Orthodoxy was founded in the 1800's.
Side A- No. After all the axiomatic beliefs of Orthodoxy are the exact beliefs that all Judaism had before the 1800's. The movements that questioned those beliefs in response to modernity were "founded" as breakaway movements and themselves coined the phrase "Orthodox" to describe the old original Judaism. [Sources- Side A has brought many sources showing that Judaism had the same beliefs as Orthodoxy for 1,000 years. These are unnecessary however, since no one has denied this point. In addition Side A has brought a direct quote from R' Hirsch describing the genesis of the entire term and idea of "Orthodox" as originating with those who derided the old original Judaism of before the enlightenment. No one disputes this source.]
Side B- Yes. Even though it is true that Orthodoxy has the exact same axiomatic beliefs as Judaism of before the 1800's, it is still considered to be "founded" because it is claimed that in response to modernity it adopted stricter sub-practices of a group of Jews in the 1700's.[Sources- Side B has brought many sources saying that Conservative believes it is resurrecting historical Judaism (Dorff, Parzen). These are unnecessary since no one disputes this. Side B has also brought a source (Gordis) saying that Orthodoxy "has adopted one stage in the history of Judaism, that of Eastern Europe about the year 1700, stereotyped it, and adopted it as the permanent and "authentic" pattern for Judaism for all time". This quote is disputed by Side A as a source that Orthodoxy was founded in the 1800's since a) he mentions nothing about any "founding" in the 1800's, and b) all Gordis is saying is that Orthodoxy was incorrect for insisting on freezing Jewish practice in its then current form regardless of modernity. He is arguing that Orthodoxy is incorrect because they should have changed their practice, not because they started any new movement.]
No, Gordis is faulting Orthodoxy for rejecting the Judaism of the Amoraim, i.e. a major part of normative Rabbinic Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
See my response below.Shykee 13:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
2) Were the actual practices of the Jewish people in accord with Judaism?
Side A- Yes, but Not relevant to this article. This article presents the different definitions of the formulated philosophy of the religion "Judaism". Other information should be in the article "Jew" or in a different article "Jewish History".
We have an article on Jewish philosophy. The Judaism article should included formulated jewish philosophies, but it should also include other things. to restrict it to formulated philosophies of "the religion Judaism" is to impose a particular POV on the article. That POV should be included, but not exclusively. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The word "philosophy" is used here not in the academic sense but to mean how Judaism has been formulated as a religious system and what this system is. It is not a POV to say that an article describing the religion should describe the religion and not the sociological history of the Jewish people.Shykee 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
Mordecai Kaplan considers Judaism to be a civilization not a religion. This POV should be represented in the article in addition to the POV that it is a religion. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Side B- No and relevant, and the information should be sourced and included in the article.

Have I fairly represented all views and is there a response from "Side B" concerning the disputation of its sources?? Shykee 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

I don't think you are including my view. My view is this: there are people who say that Orthodoxy was founded in the 1800s, and people who say it wasn't; there are people who say that prior to the Haskalah popular practices accorded with normative judaism and there are people who question that. All views should be represented in the article, and the article should explain who are the major proponents of each view, and provide sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you mean. I could not have been more clear when I wrote that the discussion has two sides. One saying that Orthodoxy was never accurately "founded" in the 1800's and one saying that it was. I also wrote that there are two sides concerning what the popular practices were and whether it is relevant to the article. Additionally, the objection was raised that there have been no sources provided arguing that Orthodoxy was founded in the 1800's. Is there a response? Shykee 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
Ah, I just noticed that you responded concerning the Gordis quote. Here is what you wrote ":::No, Gordis is faulting Orthodoxy for rejecting the Judaism of the Amoraim, i.e. a major part of normative Rabbinic Judaism." Actually, in the quote provided Gordis does not even mention the Amoraim. Also, that only agrees with what I have continually maintained: that Conservative Judaism sees itself as resurrecting historic Judaism, but all agree that until the split in Jewry all were practicing what we call Orthodox Judaism. Nowhere do I see Gordis arguing that Orthodoxy was "founded" in the 1800's. Response? Shykee 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
You write "all agree that until the split in Jewry all were practicing what we call Orthodox Judaism." My side is this: this is a point of view that should be included in the article. As with other points of view the article should say who the main proponents of this view are, and provide a source/citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I am obviously not making up the idea that until the 1800's all practiced what we call Orthodoxy is . I have provided a quote from R'Hirsch, but will provide a more detailed one if you wish. However, I don't believe any quote has been provided arguing that Orthodoxy was founded in the 1800's as a new movement. Do you disagree? Shykee 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
As to your not making up the idea - we have already gone over this Shykee and I am tired of it: I am NOT being personal and you should not take it personally. I am not asking you to prove you are not making up the idea. I am saying that the article has to comply with our policies. As to Dorff and Gordis, I believe they are claiming Orthodoxy began as a new movement, selectively using (as other movements, like Reform and Conservative) elements from the past. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that we have misunderstood each other, I do not accuse you of being personal. My point was that although no one says that it is being made up, sources will still be provided. As to your sources, I would challenge you to show were they are saying that Orthodoxy was founded in the 1800's as a new movement. I have carefully read them, and only see them defending Conservatism as a valid historical movement and saying that the Orthodox are wrong for still practicing Judaism as it was practiced in the 1700's, but nowhere do any of the quotes argue that Orthodoxy began something new. I sincerely ask you, where do you see otherwise? Shykee 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)shykee
Shykee, I am sincerely glad it was a misunderstanding. I am glad you will find the appropriate sources for the views of Orthodoxy you have been highlighting. As for the other view ... I think you and I interpret Gordis differently. No matter. This is what will satisfy me: as long as this statement: " Orthodoxy has adopted one stage in the history of Judaism, that of Eastern Europe about the year 1700, stereotyped it, and adopted it as the permanent and "authentic" pattern for Judaism for all time. To be sure, the recall is neither complete nor accurate ... " is in the article, along with other accounts of Orthodoxy, I will be satisfied. I am willing to let you suggest where exactly in the text it should go. The POV can be identified as "According to Rabbi Robert Gordis, a prominent leader of the Conservative movement" (or a leader of the CM prominent in the 1960s). I will have to find the page number. I just want this view of Orthodoxy included with the other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gordis is making a universal claim about "Orthodoxy" the religion as distinct from a local claim, the sort a historian would make, about the beliefs of particular people in a particular time and place. But Gordis is not a reliable source for making such a claim. Using him as a source for such claims would violate the WP:RS policy in two ways. First, Gordis is being quoted on a topic outside his expertise. "Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree." Gordis has credentials in Conservative Judaism, but no credentials to be an expert on "Orthodoxy." The second is the WP:RS requirement that "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution." Gordis is clearly and obviously a partisan source, a leader of a rival denomination whose very legitimacy, in Gordis' view, stems from instilling a belief that it has the greater legitimacy than its rivals. Gordis is certainly a reliable source to offer Conservative religious beliefs or opinions or dogmas about Orthodoxy, just as he could be relied on for Conservative Judaism's religious opinions about evolution or astrology or numerous other subjects. But he is not a reliable source for scholarly information about these subjects themselves (as distinct from Conservative Judaism's opinions of these subjects). The same is true here. The opinion should be presented as, and in a section entitled, "Conservative beliefs about Orthodoxy" or "Conservative criticism of Orthodoxy." Shabbat Shalom --Shirahadasha 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gordis is an expert on the Conservative POV. As long as he is presented as expressing a Conservative POV, he is an entirely reliable source. If you exclude him, you are violating our NPOV policy. NPOV is inviolate. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth stressing what we agree on and what we don't. Let's begin with some important areas of agreement. We agree there are reliable sources who claim (whether rightly or wrongly is beside the point) that (1) Before 1800 "Rabbinical Judaism" distinguished between halakha (oral or written) that was miMoshe miSinai, and rabbinic law such as decrees, exegesis, agaddah, and minhag; (2) in the 19th Century a group of people began claiming that everything was miMoshe MiSinai; and (3) this was a new approach. Another source, Tamar Ross, completely agrees with all three elements of this thesis:

The more traditional figures of ultra-Orthodoxy in the 19th century actually pursued the ambitious (and counterintuitive) strategy of claiming that all rabbinic law (including exegesis, decrees, and even custom) was revealed together with the written Torah at Sinai. This renders the entire Talmud a record of transmitted divine law, direct and unadulterated from Moses at Sinai. Such a maximalist view runs counter not only to the historical consciuosness of the 19th century but even to the testimony of the Talmud itself, which attributed legislative enactments to several rabbinic leaders of the first two centuries C.E. (original emphasis) (Tamar Ross, Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism, 20004, p. 60).

We also have an important disagreement. We disagree that this maximalist position, what Tamar Ross calls the "Hungarian School", (a) was as an historical matter the only school of Orthodox thought around in the 19th century, or (b) is as a current religious matter a definition of Orthodoxy or the only possible Orthodox way to think. Proffessor Ross cites the "German School", as having a different approach:

The response of German neo-Orthodoxy to modernity differed from that of its ultra-Orthodox Hungarian counterpart. Neo-Orthodoxy held that the clamor for the reform of traditional Judaism would be adequately countered by strictly cultural and aesthetic responses. While accepting modernity in these external social aspects, the leaders of neo-Orthodoxy sought to adopt a line of defense that stood midway betweeen accepting the notion of halakhic immutability and acknowledging or even celebrating some measure of innovative liberty. This solution was captured in their enthusiastic adoption of the rabbinic formula "Torah with derekh eretz. (ibid., p. 62).

We could reach agreement very quickly if, instead presenting Gordis as factually describing "Orthodoxy", the article did one of two things: (a) clarified that Gordis' comments are describing only the "maximalist" or "Hungarian" school which became Haredi Judaism, rather than all of Orthodoxy, or (b) If Gordis is in fact claiming to be supplying a definition of "Orthodoxy" (e.g. if he is claiming that the "midway" or "German" School" is "really" part of Conservativism and not "properly" part of Orthodoxy), the article should be very careful to identify such claims as being strictly a description of a Conservative POV and not factual description of Orthodoxy.

I believe WP:RS policy requires skepticism and reservations about WP publishing an opinion from a representative of another denomination making claims about the other denomination's boundaries that (a) aren't generally accepted by sources from the other denomination and (b) essentially poach on the other denomination's self-described territory. We generally accept denominations' own claims about their beliefs and boundaries. Since Conservative Judaism occupies a "minimalist" position on the halakhic immutability spectrum, obviously there is a grey area in between that might arguably be claimed by some elements in both parties. Gordis is an authority on the territory Conservativism is claiming and Conservative Judaism's boundaries as Conservative Judaism sees them. He is not an authority on Orthodoxy's boundaries and claims, and should not be presented as such. Rabbi Gordis may think, for example, that Proffessor Ross's views are not "really" Orthodox. But he is not a reliable authority to say one way or the other. --Shirahadasha 03:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Our NPOV policy demands that we include divergent points of view, not exclude them. To provide only Orthodox views of Orthodoxy is a flat out violation of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to agree with one of the two options for agreement proposed above? If you disagree with both, why do you disagree with each? -- Shirahadasha 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I go for a modified option (b). As I have stated, from the very beginnning, and consistently, Gorids is representing the POV of a Conservative leader. This is not really my chosing one of your two options, it is my complying with our NPOV policy. The same goes for any statements about Orthodoxy: we must state whose POV it is. In other words, no view should be represented as objective fact. There are only multiple views: those of lay Orthodox Jews, those of haredim, those of Modern Orthodox, those of Rabbis, those of historians, those of sociologists, and so on. As our core policies state, Wikipedia is concerned not with "truth" but with verifiability. Gordis's is a verifiable position, reflecting a particular point of view. The same would go for any quote from Hirsch or anyone else we draw on in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How do we implement a change There's only a brief paragraph on the entire Haskalah era, with less than a single sentence on Orthodox Judasim ("while traditionalists founded Orthodox Judaism." We would need to expand this section considerably to include everyone's criticism of everyone else, since it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to include only Conservative criticism of Orthodoxy without including all the other pairwise criticisms (Orthodox of Conservative and Reform, Reform of Orthodox and Conservative, Conservative of Reform). Is this an appropriate place for this sort of criticism? Might not it better be put on each denomination's individual article? My suggestion here would be that we change the one sentence to ("Traditionalist movements became known as Modern Orthodox and Haredi Orthodox Judaism." I suggest that further detail on the issue, including criticism, take place on the article on each of the denominattons. --Shirahadasha 01:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why separate the two? Just, "the traditional movements became known as Orthodox" which is more NPOV than what I had a few weeks ago, I think, when we started this discussion. -- Avi 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
MY suggestion is to add Gordis's view, and then - as people do research - add other views (to the Orthodox section but of course we should encourage editors to do the necessary comparable research for other movements as well). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting developments in the discussion. Especially the idea that Professor Ross is somehow claiming that "Neo-Orthodoxy" was actually Conservative. R'Hirsch must be turning over in his grave. It would be useless to start quoting every single POV and criticism that each denomination has of the other. I propose presenting each denomination's view of itself and its place in history. Again, a proposal with slight modifications:

In the early 1800s, European Jewry was forced to confront and respond to The Age of Enlightenment and the emancipation. The different responses to modernity, and the resultant different levels of compromise with modern-day thought, resulted in the three main branches of Ashkanazic Judaism extant today. Some Jews felt that modernity demanded a complete reinterpretation of Judaism, they argued that Judaism had to "reform" itself in keeping with the social changes taking place around them. This movement held that both the Written and Oral Torah, though of important religious value, were not necessarily of Divine origin. These Jews were the founders of Reform Judaism. Others, while accepting the divinity of the Written Torah, felt that the divine origin of Judaism's Oral Torah was not requisite and could be re-interpreted to a degree in keeping with modern scholarship; they argued that historically the legal force of the Halacha was dependent on its acceptance by the Jewish nation and evolved according to the requirements of the age. The developers of this movement were called the "positive historical" school of Judaism, considered the intellectual forerunner of Conservative Judaism. Traditionalists, however, maintained that Judaism had never compromised any of its beliefs and tenets in response to external changes. They pointed out that Judaism had always considered the Halacha to be of divine origin, and that denying divine revelation of the Written and Oral Torah, or interpreting Halacha based on considerations other than the implementation of the divine will, had historically been considered outside the pale of authentic Judaism. This group became known as Orthodox Judaism.

There were actually four votes in favor of this proposal above (including my own). Comments/suggestions? Shykee 21:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)shykee

POV

===>Messianic Judaism As discussed earlier, I feel that the current structure of the article is POV. This point-of-view is an unjustified bias against Messianics as not being real Jews or even an alternative form of Judaism, while at the same time considering controversial groups such as Karaites and Samaritans or even syncretic groups like Jubus as Jews.

  • This article cannot take any position on who the Jews are and remain NPOV.
  • To claim that Messianics are syncretists is POV, as Messianics do not consider themselves syncretists; according to them, recognizing Yeshua as the Messiah is a natural consequence of historic Judaism and the proper understanding of the Tanakh.
  • To insist that Judaism and Christianity are somehow mutually exclusive is unfounded and at the very least difficult to prove. It creates a difficult task for the editors of the article to determine when and how Christianity and Judaism became two distinct phenomena. This is not the scope of this article, nor is it appropriate for a neutral source of information to take a stance on an issue like this.
  • Excluding Messianics while including the other groups listed is a blatant contradiction that is apparently baseless.
  • Since the defintion of who is a Jew and what constitutes the Jewish community is partially ethnic, there can be no denying that people who are ethnically Jewish are still Jews regardless of their beliefs (hence, humanistic Jews and syncretists are listed here under alternative forms of Judaism.)
  • Even though an attempt has been made to create a new section on syncretism, this is equally problematic as the group Jewish Renewal is still under "alternative forms of Judaism" even though it is influenced by New Age, and again, the Messianic commmunity themselves do not understand the Messianic movement to be syncretist, so labelling it as such is POV.
  • Consequently, the only NPOV, appropriate structuring of the article is to include discussion of all non-mainstream Jewish groups together, with no bais toward who is and isn't really Jewish, or which groups are or are not syncretists (unless they are self-identified as such, or clearly rely on an entirely unrelated system of belief.)
  • As a caveat, I would like to mention that I personally have no vested interest in defining who is really Jewish, and I don't object in principle with discussion of why mainstream Judaism sees Messianics as outside of the Jewish community, why they could be labelled syncretists from third-party sources, or how Messianics differ in theology and/or practice from mainstream Jewish denominations. These explanations should, as always, avoid weasel statements and be sourced (which shouldn't be hard, considering the controversy of groups like Jews for Jesus.) -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 04:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, I missed the New Age sentence. For the time being, I have moved that with the others. -- Avi 04:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
However there is the fact that the mainstream Jewish movements do NOT believe in Messianic Judaism. In fact, one of the main principles of Judaism is that there is only one god, therefore if we accepted Messianic Jews to be true Jews, we would be violating our own religion. From my community, we had some objections to seeing Messianic Judaism being labeled an offshoot of Judaism. Messianic Judaism is only an attempt to make Christians out of Jews by Christians while making them think that they are still Jewish. By violating the first and second commandments, Messianic Jews do not fall under any of the Jewish denominations --Mistressblaed 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Monotheism Christians are monotheists. I understand that the Messianic movement is controversial; I'm not saying it's not. But you're ignoring the POV issue altogether. This article should not take the POV of mainstream Judaism if it is to remain neutral. Saying that "Messianic Judaism is only an attempt to make Christians out of Jews by Christians while making them think that they are still Jewish" is an unprovable bad faith assertion that assumes no one would freely accept Yeshua as the Messiah (which is of course untrue, or else Christianity would never have happened in the first place.) And you still didn't address other groups that are in clear violation of the first and second commandments (Jubus), while the assertion that Messianics are is unproven and simply not true. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Er Koav: IF "This article should not take the POV of mainstream Judaism..." then it will no longer be an article about Judaism, but about what any Tom, Dick, and Harry (or Joe) in the world imagines Judaism should, could, or would be, but it is patently clear to most people out there that there is no such thing as "shoulda, coulda, woulda" -- specially when in comes to Judaism! IZAK 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states quite clearly that according to most Jews, Messianics are not Jews. That is about as NPOV as you can get it. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Judaism. How is the Messianic movement for Jesus relevant to this article? It is a movement of people who believe in an Old Testament leading to a New Testament, just like the other Christians. They often call Jesus and these books by Hebrew names, but that clearly does not change a thing. I do not think Judaism is the right place to discuss Christianity or - if it does not like this the label - a new religious movement (which it is in any case). There are separate articles for these. gidonb 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This article is about Judaism the religion, not Jews the people. Faiths that call Jesus Messiah and God are "Christianity", not "Judaism". Many Jews have converted to Buddhism, but that doesn't make Buddhism Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Justin (koavf) [mostly] et al.

First off, to state the obvious, how you feel about the article is a POV, namely "yours". You fail to state how the article's structure gives an "unjustified bias against Messianics". Our article on Messianic Judaism makes quite clear, as discussed above and on Talk:Messianic Judaism, that that article has a systemic bias in favor of presenting messianism in Judaism as being solely the purview of Jews who believe Jesus is/was Mashiach. Hello pot, meet kettle. As others have pointed out, this article is about Judaism, not about Jews. Karaites are problematically considered Jews by rabbinical Jews [because of their rejection of matrilineal descent], and neither rabbinical or karaite Jews consider Kuthim to be Jews, they are only so-considered by non-Jews. The article does not take a position on who is or is not a Jew, it presents the rabbinical [i.e., authoritative, as far as Judaism is concerned] view, and shucks the details and disagreements off to Who is a Jew?. As for "controversial", neither Qara'im nor Kuthim are "controversial" in anything even remotely approaching the sensationalist sense in which Jewish converts to Baptist Christianity are. Even JuBus aren't so controversial, since, unlike the Jews for Jesus and related groups, they don't claim to be practicing Judaism, real, recovered, fulfilled or otherwise. They honestly and openly admit that they are Buddhists who, as it happens, are Jews.

The claim is not that Messianics are "syncretist", unless the term is being used by someone who fails to understand the meaning of that word. Messianics are unequivocally not syncretist. They are wholly and unquestionably Christians, regardless of how much they try to obfuscate that simple truth. The closest any Messianic groups ever come to "syncretism" is by blending Jewish appearance with their Christian beliefs and practices. Having a pesach seder and explaining the meaning thereof, in abject defiance of Torah, as a remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice, is Christian evangelicalism, not Judaism. Calling such practices "syncretist" is foolish. "Coöption" or "usurpation" is a far more accurate description of such nonsense, which is nothing more than a blatant expression of supersessionism. If Jewish converts to Christianity feel like such emptied ritual observances connect their new religious beliefs with the religiously void lives they lived as children, that's their own loss...it's not "syncretism", however, it's nothing more than a bizarre [and obscenely offensive to anyone who knows anything about Judaism...not just because its practitioners are Christians, but because it stands everything that pesach is about on its head, glorifying human sacrifice when pesach is a rejection of the acceptability of a belief system that makes human sacrifice acceptable] redefinition [contrary to Torah] of the commemoration of the divine Act that led to the foundation of Judaism. That said, claiming that the claim that Messianics are syncretist is not POV, especially not because "Messianics do not consider themselves syncretists"...one can certainly state that Messianics don't consider themselves to be syncretist, but their self-conception is quite irrelevant when it comes time to actually analyze their beliefs and practices. Christians, Mormons and even many Hindus consider themselves to be monotheists...but none of the definitions of "monotheism" any of those religious systems subscribe to are compatible with Judaism's view of what it is to be a monotheist. Saying so is not "POV", it's "statement of fact". In the same way, if Messianics consider recognition of Jesus as Mashiach, it's not POV to point out that nothing about any interpretation of Judaism outside of the 1960s-on Messianic "movement" agrees with their view. The Messianics' assertion that Jesus is Messiah cannot be demonstrated anywhere outside of Christian literature [some of which in recent years has been written by Jews who happen to be Christians, admittedly], as either a natural consequence of historic Judaism [whatever that might mean] or as a result of a "proper" understanding of Tanakh.

Insisting that Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive is neither "unfounded", nor even remotely "difficult to prove". Judaism insists on uncompromising unitary monotheism and has, as its very basis, a contract, spelling out who must do what, etc., between God and the Jews. The basis for what Greco-Roman "Western" civilization regards as the "religion" of Judaism, is purely ACTION. Christianity, on the other hand, begins by dispensing not only with the terms of the contract [Torah observance], but also with the symbol of rembrance of the contract between Abraham and God [circumcision], AND, completely replaces Judaism's basis in ACTION with an exclusive requirement for a prescribed BELIEF. Judaism has always given room for the believer to return to God's good graces after committing a wrong ACT, but never bothers to address the utterly frivolous idea of how someone who constantly does good deeds [i.e., in accordance with the terms of the aforementioned "contract"] should return to God's good graces for having fallen prey to an incorrect BELIEF. Christianity, on the other hand, exhorts the believer to be good, but offers blanket immunity for indiscretions, so long as you believe the right thing. That song about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions should be adopted by modern hip [country-western loving] Jews as a blanket response to Christianity. That said, the objection "insist[ing] that Judaism and Christianity are somehow mutually exclusive is unfounded and at the very least difficult to prove" points up a potential failure to understand here, again, that we're talking about the religious aspects of Jewishness, not the ethnic-identity aspects. Nobody's claiming that the Jewish adherents of Messianic "Judaism" aren't Jewish [except for the Israeli Interior Ministry, which is responsible for interpreting the bounds of Israel's Law of Return...], rather, the relevant point is simply that being an adherent of Messianic Judaism or a member of a Messyantic congregation does not make a person a Jew, in the same way that the fact that circles are ellipses and squares are rectangles does not make an ellipse a circle, nor a rectangle a square. If this still doesn't makes sense, let me put it this way...A non-Jewish Christian woman who insists that she will receive bountiful rain if she tithes from her orchard and makes sure to follow the regulations of niddah would be rejected as a Judaizer by every mainstream Christian denomination. A Jewish adherent of Christianity in that scenario would be called a "backslidden Christian", for keeping Torah instead of abandoning it! A non-Jewish man who chose to get circumcised in order to ensure that he and his offspring would be heirs to the covenant with Abraham, would be called seriously deluded, "lacking understanding of those things that are essential" by Christianity, while by Judaism, he would be regarded as deluded only if he did so w/o simultaneously making a statement to abide by the rest of the subsequent covenants between God and the descendants of Abraham. The two views are not compatible.

As for whether or not it's appropriate to discern the incompatibility of Judaism and Christianity, I think you are very wrong. On the other hand, I must agree with you that better coverage of how the two religious communities developed such incompatible worldviews deserves better coverage on WP...that point, however, is not a good reason to mischaracterize pointing out the incompatibility as "POV". Also, WP is not taking any stance on this "issue", nor any other, as I said earlier, by simply stating matters of fact, so that assertion is, again again, a mischaracterization.

I have no problem with excluding all groups that aren't practicing anything remotely approaching Judaism...and for that, I draw an arbitrary line around Reconstructionism as the "outer limits" [by which I mean "far out in left field"]... Jubus aren't practicing Judaism, nor are Judeo-Pagans, nor are Muslim Jews/Jews for Allah, nor are Jews for Jesus/Messianics. As I've expressed elsewhere, I think the whole Alternative Judaism business is a crock...everything listed there is nothing more than a collection of movements or support groups w/in other religions, the membership of which happens to be primarily Jewish. That said, there is no need to include ANY such groups here, since none of them are practicing anything remotely recognizable as "Judaism". They are, simply, "Jewish practitioners of religions other than Judaism".

I agree with you, that Jewish Renewal's proponents are not practicing Judaism, and should be excised/excluded from any serious discussion in this article, as should "Messianic" "Judaism".

After all that, I must fundamentally disagree that the only NPOV structuring of the article is to include discussion of all non-mainstream Jewish groups...rather that, since they're not practicing Judaism, a link should be made to Alternative Judaism, which should be renamed Non-Judaism religious groups comprised primarily of Jews.

As for the assertions about "or else Christianity would never have happened in the first place" demonstrates an abject ignorance of the history of Christianity. The vast majority of the early Jewish adherents of Jesusism were slaughtered wholesale long before the thoroughly gentilized Christianity became the Religion of the Empire, and their influence was far from "complete" even within NT times. Cheers, Tomertalk 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


comment

It would look nice if the author would disist from trashing another religion. In this quite short reply the author demonstrates not only intollerance to other peoples belief but also a stunning ignorance of the same's belief. In addition, the author hasn't payed much attention to history lessons as well (f.ex. forgetting that the christian communities had left Jerusalem before the roman assult (I assume that is what is hinted by the strange claim of early christians being "wholesale slaughtered") and forgetting the jewish diaspora in the roman empire that formed much of the breeding ground for "extra-palestine" early christianity. There are several factual errors or, to put it nicely, Very personal POV concerning monoteismen or whether or not Jesus can be said to be the prophetized messiah, from relevant OT scriptures.

When that is said I don't understand Justin's claim that christianiy should be included as a form or variation of Judaismen. The Pauline (another former jew) stance is quite clear on the subject: "a new covenant and a new people". The two form distinct religions both in own self-understanding as well as in content, structure of belief and view on "God". --85.82.169.61 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Steel

Reform Judaism

Reform Judaism exists. It is legitimately Judaism, it is legitimately part of Judaism, it is not apostacy, and it is not Christianity or non-Judaism. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. And what does this have to do with anything? Tomertalk 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What does one call a movement that does not affirm belief in anything and yet still claims to be a religion? Paradoxically, irreligious Reform has become the opium of the masses. 68.198.237.151 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Post nationalism you mean. Kakugo 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment

(Moved from top) I always thought that hinduism was the oldest known religion:S

Indeed (according to Hinduism) it is, but Hinduism is not the oldest monotheistic religion. Walkerma 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2

Judaism is pseudoscientific —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.5 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT --Shaul avrom 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary requested

There has been a lot of lengthy, heated, somewhat repetitive and occasionally ad hominem debate here recently about the relation of pre-Haskalah Judaism and Orthodoxy. Ie read through about a third of it and, frankly, didn't have the patience to slog through the rest. I gather that there is still a great deal of disagreement. I would appreciate greatly if that participants each of whom wrote several thousand words above might each attempt a 200-word-or-less summary of their positions, focused on what each believes is potentially relevant to the article, not on their estimations of one another's character. - Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my view: in addition to specific sections on each of the major contemporary movements of Judaism, there should be a general introduction to these sections that outlines or summarizes the origins of the main movements. In this summary section, I believe it will be easy to reach a consensus on how Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Judaism came to exist. However, Orthodox and non-Orthodox have different views towards the origins and nature of Orthodoxy. Obviously, the Orthodox view must be expressed. In addition, I believe that the major alternate view should be expressed alongside. I believe this view is best expressed in Robert Gordis (A leader of the Conservative Movement and Bible scholar): "Orthodoxy has adopted one stage in the history of Judaism, that of Eastern Europe about the year 1700, stereotyped it, and adopted it as the permanent and "authentic" pattern for Judaism for all time. To be sure, the recall is neither complete nor accurate ... " User:slrubenstein
Here is my view. I don't disagree with presenting the above POV, but I disagree with presenting it as a definition or history of Orthodoxy as distinct from a (potentially partisan) Conservative criticism of Orthodoxy (and labeled as such). Although a notable POV (e.g. the Chatam Sofer (see Haredi Judaism) indeed thought that Judaism must be preserved exactly as they found it, others (e.g. Samson Raphael Hirsch, see Modern Orthodox) thought Jews could adopt culturally to modernity and Judaism could undergo some modernization without compromising fundamental halakhic principles. Orthodoxy has had a legitimate and active Left since at least the 19th century. Although many within Orthodoxy's left share the feeling that the contemporary halachic process has become too brittle, (See e.g. Daniel Sperber, "Paralysis in Contemporary Halakhah?" Tradition 36:3 (Fall 2002), 1-13; "'Friendly' Pesaq and the 'Friendly' Poseq" (pdf) Edah 5:2, 2006), this is not part of "Orthodoxy"'s definition or universal to its history. Some Conservative leaders' unfortunate tendency to equate Orthodoxy with Harediism benefits their claim to be the only legitimate place for anyone wishing to combinine tradtion and change. But we should generally present denominational leaders' claims that rival denominations are "sterotyped" or require quotation marks around "authentic" as partisan criticism, not neutral scholarship. See Triumphalism. See also WP:RS ("Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution") Would agree that Triumphalist Orthodox claims about Conservative Judaism should be equally presented as denominational criticisms, rather than scholarly definitions, of Conservativism. And Slrubenstein is welcome to obtain views from e.g. academic historians. --Shirahadasha 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that "potentially partisan" is always a given wherever we cite mutually contradictory views. It also seems to me that the potential partisanship on both sides would be very clear if we give both a mainstream Orthodox and a Conservative account, one after another, and they disagree. I would think that we could give, clearly attributed, an Orthodox account of the matter follow by an equally clearly attributed Conservative account (it sounds like you both agree that Gordis would be suitable for the latter). It doesn't sound like this should be hard to do. - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Shirshadasha writes that he disagrees "with presenting it (I assume he means the Gordis quote) as a definition or history of Orthodoxy as distinct from a (potentially partisan) Conservative criticism of Orthodoxy (and labeled as such)." Nowhere have I suggested that the Gordis quote or any other quote be presented as anything other than the POV of a leader of the Conservative movement. If Shirahadasha thinks I have ever stated otherwise I hope he will say where I have suggested this. I think the issue is, where to place the Gordis quote or any other reference that diverges from the Orthodox POV? I do not think that the Gordis quote belongs in the section on Conservative Judaism. It belongs either in the section on Orthodoxy (note: I am talking about one quote representing a point of view widely shared outside of Orthodoxy - I fully accept that the Orthodoxy section should privilege the views of Orthodox groups) or in the general introduction to the section. All points of view should be properly identified of course. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. If slRubinstein writes that she agrees to the POV approach, we're fine. --Shirahadasha 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote at 09:50, 16 June 2006 (forty days ago), "The obvious solution is for the article to represent both points of view and properly identify them and source them." This has been my view all along. I am glad we are in agreement. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
As I recall most of the conversation involved User:Shykee --Shirahadasha 16:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
My personal impression, from readings of the founders of Conservatism, is that they did not claim that Orthodoxy was "founding" a movement. Rather, that Orthodoxy was incorrectly insisting on continuing the practice of Judaism until then extent, instead of modification to accommodate modernity- which Conservatism says historical Judaism demanded. I believe a careful reading of all the quotes supplied by user:slrubenstein (see above) bear this out. Randomly choosing a specific quote from Gordis to imply otherwise is, in my POV, useless and inappropriate. After all, we could easily quote Herbert Parzen in Architects of Conservative Judaism to imply something else entirely-"The Orthodox are necessarily loyal to rabbinic tradition and obediently submit to the Law as it has found expression in the Shulhan Aruckh, the official legal codex". To sum up, the Conservative POV is that Orthodoxy was incorrect for insisting on the status quo instead of changing, this criticism does not seem to justify an edit of the article that says that Orthodoxy was "founded". Additionally, I do not believe that the article should suffer from specific reference to any and all criticisms that each denomination has of the others; these criticisms will be inherent in the explanation of the denomination's view of itself. A fair and simple suggestion would be to introduce each denomination without becoming entangled in these issues. Please see the section above "The Proposal" for an idea. The proposed paragraph could easily be split into three parts, each as an introduction to its specific denomination. Shykee 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)shykee
This is the summary of your position? It seems more like an argument than a summary of your position. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Please allow others to state their position without taking cheap shots which are unhelpful and counterproductive. shykee 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)shykee
Please answer my question without being a jerk. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Refrain from personal attacks, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. Again, please allow others to state their position freely without forcing them to squabble over petty and immaterial points. Label it as you will- position, argument- the veracity of my summary is not affected. shykee 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)shykee
Your argument that any point of view as to the origins of Orthodoxy, other than Orthodox views, be excluded from the account of the origins of Orthodoxy, is not petty and immaterial. It is a blatant violation of NPOV policy. Shirahadasha and I seem to have worked out a mutually acceptable compromise. But compromise seems to be anathema to you - you wish only to prolong argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the civility of this debate, it appears that you have not actually read my summary. I will quote my summary: "To sum up, the Conservative POV is that Orthodoxy was incorrect for insisting on the status quo instead of changing, this criticism does not seem to justify an edit of the article that says that Orthodoxy was "founded". Additionally, I do not believe that the article should suffer from specific reference to any and all criticisms that each denomination has of the others; these criticisms will be inherent in the explanation of the denomination's view of itself. A fair and simple suggestion would be to introduce each denomination without becoming entangled in these issues. Please see the section above "The Proposal" for an idea. The proposed paragraph could easily be split into three parts, each as an introduction to its specific denomination." shykee 02:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)shykee

Also, please refrain from speculation concerning other people's motivations or wishes. Your inappropriate comment only serves to degrade the level of discourse in this discussion. shykee 02:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)shykee
Shykee, perhaps it might be helpful to offer your own proposal. Shavuah Tov, --Shirahadasha 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Shykee is being defensive, because he sees any view other than his own as an attack. The non-Orthodox views as to the origins of Orthodoxy are not "criticisms," they are alternate views. And our NPOV policy requires us to include them. Shykee keeps referring to his "proposal" above, but that proposal is flawed in that with regards to the origins of Orthodoxy it allows only for the Orthodox view. Other views must be included (and, as Shirahadasha and I agree, these views must be clearly identified and sourced). If Shykee does not accept our NPOV policy then Shykee might better spend his energies elsewhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Slrubinstein, it would be wise to spend your energies debating the issues instead of continually engaging in immature personal attacks. Again, it seems you have failed to actually read and respond to my points. I will again quote myself, and this time please read my comment carefully. Notice that I disagree with your characterization of the Conservative POV as one that Orthodoxy was "founded". Rather, I believe it to be more nuanced and indeed more of a criticism than an "alternate view" of history. Here is my quote: "To sum up, the Conservative POV is that Orthodoxy was incorrect for insisting on the status quo instead of changing, this criticism does not seem to justify an edit of the article that says that Orthodoxy was "founded". Additionally, I do not believe that the article should suffer from specific reference to any and all criticisms that each denomination has of the others; these criticisms will be inherent in the explanation of the denomination's view of itself.". My proposal was not flawed because it presented each denomination's view without getting entangled in these criticisms. These may indeed have a place in the article, and, as I wrote they will be inherent in the description of each groups view of itself. Again, please read my comment and respond only to the issues without engaging in puerile attacks. Thanks, shykee 13:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)shykee

Shykee, the text in bold seems to be an argument against Slrubinstein's proposal. What would you say instead if you could write the portion of the article dealing with Orthodox Judaism, and the response to Reform, in the first half of the 19th century? --Shirahadasha 15:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, I will try to present a clear version of my previous proposal in denomination specific form (i.e. presenting each group as a separate statement). I hope that a delay of a couple of days is not a problem, after all this discussion has been dragging on for quite some time! Shabbat Shalom. shykee 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)shykee

Miriam's Dissappeared

Miriam now refers to a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, the link to the Miriam in the Tanach is self-referential, it's a link to the disambiguation page. If the original content on Miriam still exists, I couldn't find any way to get to it. Is there a way to untangle the self-referential linking, or has the content on Miriam actually dissappeared and in need of reconstructing? If so, what name should the article get since the original now refers to the disambiguation page? Miriam (Hebrew Bible)? Also, there's an article on Snow-white Miriam which refers to the episode over Miriam getting Tazriah. I don't why there should be two separate articles since this was simply an episode in the Biblical Miriam's life. Once there is a main Miriam article, I want to propose merging, and it looks like it needs some going-over. (The article's not mentioned in the disambiguation page). --Shirahadasha 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

Not a single mention of Zoroastrianism's role in the development of Judaism... Why the bloody hell not?!

Good Q. Urbach has written about this. I do not have the sources on me but we could have some discussion of his in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hanukkah - a minor holiday?

It should be noted that Hanukkah is a minor holiday in relation to it's mention in the Bible and other texts, but in reality, it is up there with Passover in modern times. Even Orthodox find these holiday especially relevent. Masterhomer 04:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to tradition, major holidays are all the ones recorded in the torah. Hanukkah is not mentioned in the Torah, so it wouldn't be consitered a major holiday. This info is according to my rabbi. I do see, however, that Hanukkah is a major holiday in today's society. I would, though, say that it is major only in the US, where it has ben commertialized because it is around the holiday time (december). Hanukkah is not such a big deal in Israel. --66.41.20.22 06:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism in Ethiopia

Someone just added a good deal of content. It is interesting, but seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research. Can the contributor or someone follow our policies and add verifiable sources? Otherwise, we may have to delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Firstly, it is WP:OR. Secondly it follows neither WP:V nor WP:RS. Thirdly, this is not the article for it. Should enough properly verified and reliable information come from secondary sources, it belongs in its own article, with at most a minor blurb here under the heading "Jews around the world" or the like. Notice, there is NO mention of "Jews in Israel" and "Jews in the US" which comprise the supermajority of Jews in the world. There are, and always have been, very few Jews, relatively speaking, in Ethiopia (I've met some who made aliyah), albeit the history does seem to date back to the first temple era. As such, the placement, volume, and non-substantiated nature of the information is completely out-of-scope for this article, and in my opinion should be reverted as vandalism. -- Avi 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of Jews

We say "15 million followers". I don't believe it. The estimates at Jewish population mostly run considerably lower than that for Jewish ethnicity. Only a negligible number of people practice Judaism without being Jews either by birth or proper conversion (and once one has converted, one is considered part of the ethnicity). Conversely, many—many millions, I'd guess—of ethnic Jews are secular or even atheistic. - Jmabel | Talk 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


What the fuck? Are you serious? If someone converts to a religion, he/she does not automatically become part of an ethnicity. You cannot convert to an ethnicity. If an ethnic Japanese woman converts to Judaism, she is still ethnic Japanese. If an ethnic Swedish man converts to Judaism, he is still an ethnic Swede.
Judaism is not an ethnicity anyway, never was, the bible stories are myths.
There is no such thing as an ethnic Jew, when will this stupid myth vanish already? ugh....
-angry anonymous user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.102.187 (talk • contribs)
The above are non-sequitors. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to believe in the Jewish religion in order to recognize that Jews function as an ethnic group in almost all ways. Secular Jews almost invariably identify as Jews, and even if they do not, they will be identified as such by most other people. You can call this a "myth" if you like, but group identity is something defined by society, not by individuals. Both the traditional and societal definitions of Jewishness are somewhat unconventional, because they can involve either ancestry or belief. But that does not make the concept any less real than typical definitions of religion and ethnicity. marbeh raglaim 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

marbehraglaim - of all the irrational arguments that people use to argue that jews are an ethnic group, yours is one of the worst. an ashkenazi jew has nothing ethnically in common with a sephardic or a bukharian jew. its as simple as that. the idea that jews are anything more than a religion is rooted in religious mythology. (http://njatheist.org/atheismandreligiondontmix.html) -angry anonymous user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.208.228 (talk • contribs)

The idea that Jews are an ethnicity is rediculous and not based on Judaism since the idea of ethnicities didn't really catch on until the 19th century. In Classical Jewish sources Jews are presented as a people bound together by mutual devotion the Torah and membership in a covenant. An ethnic paradigm for Jewishness was created in the 19th century by Jews who wanted to abandon the religion but stll feel Jewish. As you can see, the ethnic paradigm doesn't work, because like people have shown above, how does a Japanese woman join another ethnicity by a dunk in water and acceptance of commandments. She obviously doesn't. But she does join a People, in the same way she would join the AMish people if she became AMish, or any other community of faith. 88.154.162.106 08:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the idea of "ethnicity" is a recent one. Like "race," it is a social construct. So it is no surprise that people can and will argue over how to apply it to Jews. But just as there is no intrinsic or necessary reason to say Jews are an ethnic group, there is no reason for those people who agree that Jews are an ethnic group to exclude converts from the ethnic grouop - "ethnicity" is plastic enought that it can will and does have different definitions, not just one. A parallel case: Dio Cassus wrote of a member of the "Jewish race" (however one would say that in Latin) and was referring to a convert. At least at that time in Jewish history, people thought converts became members of the Jewish race. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish WIKIVERSITY

NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism and Henotheism

the lead claims (without citation) that Judaism has always been monotheist in theology, but I've seen scholars dispute this claiming lots of evidence of Iron age Jews being monolatrists or henotheists. See the henotheism link for some of the arguments. M.S. Smith is a good example of someone on this side, arguing about the Asherah stuff. In fact this page mentions the issues a little further down, why make the contentious claim, without citation in the lead? Bmorton3 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We are NOT monolatrists or henotheists. Halochoh requires that we destroy other peoples false "gods". I would like to also note that, as a Yid myself, I would like to note that, we, as monotheists and as Yidden, also, we know not to hold by henotheism. Have a Git Gebentched Yor. --Shaul avrom 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Jews ARE NOT monolatrists or henotheists, but they WERE in the iron age - that's what the GP is claiming, and that is what most scholars believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.136.214 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Viewpoints in syncretic Religions

I put the viewpoints tag there because each of the blends mentioned has a varying degree of acceptance within different parts of Judaism and it should be discussed. Especially with the madness happening on the Messianic Judaism article right now. It just needs some attention and work.

Actually I think the whole section sucks. "syncretic" is a term that is going out of fashion but the proper use is not to lable some religions as syncretic but ratehr identify syncretic elements within religions (e.g. Christmass trees, the coincidence of Jewish pilgramage festivals with pre-Israelite agricultural festivals). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First Monotheistic religion?

Isn't Zoroasterianism the one? Babub→Talk 19:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all Jewish historians at least consider Zoroastrianism as dualist. Indeed, many historians suggest that dualistic elements in Judaism (e.g. the war between Gog and Magog) were intriduced as a result of Zoroastrian influence. Urbach also argues that Jewish monotheis (as opposed to henotheism), especially in the form of the elevation of the Sh'ma, was a reaction against Zoroastrian dualism. This is certainly the Jewish POV. If Zoroastrians have a different POV I hope that is explained in the Zoroastrian article. I also wonder what other historians say. The rise of Christianity and Islam as globally dominant powers has led many people to be really dismissive of polytheism, manachiism, and dualism, and I wouldn´t be surprised given what things are like now in former Persia if there are Zoroastrians claiming Zoroastrianism to be monotheistic. Hey, it´s their religion, and up to them. But whether Zoroastrians 2400 years ago believed the same things that Zoroastrians do today is an entirely separate issue. We would need evidence that Zoroastrians back then explicitly claimed to be monotheists (or rather that critical scholars make this claim). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The traditional Cherokee religion is said to be monotheistic, and although we don't know if it predates Judaism, it may have developed independently. marbeh raglaim 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Said by whom? I am always suspicious of the passive voice. Be that as it may, I have no idea how a scholar could tell what Cherokee religion was prior to the conquest, or to what extent post-conquest views were uninfluenced by Christianity. If their agricultural practices were influenced by Europeans, why not their religious beliefs? In any event, let's drop this as this is not the Cherokee article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am new here, and I am zoroasterian by birth, although I dont believe in anything I know that zoroasterianism is a monotheistic religion, not a dualistic religion, there was a branch of zoroasterianism called, Zurvanism which was dualistic and therefore they were rejected by mainstream zoroasterians and were called heritics. that's as far as i know

Zoroastrianism (to my understanding) holds/held the view that there is one supreame divinity. This is not literally strict monoteismen since the system allows for what can be called "lesser divinities". But from a certain point of view those lesser divinities only reflect the supreame divinity. In it's core it's a gnostic type of religion.

To claim that Judaismen is the first strict monoteistic religion is to stretch it. It is not clear when Judaismen became strictly monoteistic, but it's certain that nowhere in the 5 books of moses (particulary in the oldest parts) is it claimed that there is only one God, on the contenary other Gods are mentioned, the God Jahve is just special in that *He* is the only God of the isreallis. Much, much later on the thought came that Jahve was *the only* God.

--85.82.169.61 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)steel

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judaism/Archive_10&oldid=1046034411"