From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJudaism was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2006 Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 11, 2007 Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 15, 2021 Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Hebrew Bible vs. Old Testament

I disagree with this assertion in the introduction of the article: "The Tanakh, known in English as the Hebrew Bible, is also referred to as the 'Old Testament' in Christianity." Given the contentious nature of religion and of the historical relationship between Christianity and Judaism, I didn't feel safe editing a very prominent sentence in a very prominent article without bringing it up on the talk page first. While the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament have the same content, I don't think it's sensible to call them the same text because:

  • they don't have the same order of books - the order of books in the Old Testament puts Messianic prophecies last to build up to the coming of Jesus
  • they're not translated identically - one tiny example is that the Hebrew word "orov" (swarm/mixture) used in Exodus as the name for the fourth plague is generally translated as "wild animals" in Jewish sources and "flies" in Christian ones
  • they're interpreted differently - for example, no Jewish interpretation holds that the snake in the garden of Eden was the Devil, because there is no such concept in Judaism

I've noticed that the related articles Hebrew Bible and Old Testament do make this distinction already, which hopefully means I'm not alone in this and that people will agree the same should be done here. What do other people think?

Someone the Person ( talk) 05:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The book of maccabees is in the Old Testament but not in the Hebrew bible for almost two millennia. 77.137.73.225 ( talk) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
So, this is a difficult topic. Speaking personally, I fully agree and feel that society should use the term "Hebrew Bible" or "Tanakh" and not "Old Testament," though mainly for the reasons of the Book of Maccabees being included in "Old Testament" and not Tanakh, as well as book ordering. Differences in translation and interpretation are, to me, less of an issue regarding naming. As it is, there are numerous different translations and interpretations of both the Old and New testaments within Christianity itself, such as between the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible and the Anglican King James Bible. While there may be less transnlational differences found for Tanakh, I wouldn't be surprised if some exist (even the Jewish Publication Society of America Version from 1917 has some significant differences to the more contemporary New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh from 1985). Certainly, as can be found just by looking at Talmud, let alone later scholarly discussions, there are disagreements on interpretation within Judaism.
I definitely agree personally, however, that "Old Testament" is a poor name to use due to things like the Book of Maccabees. However, that is overwhelmingly the common parlance term in the English language, and Wikipedia policy is clear that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, as much as we may personally like it to be. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 16:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I don’t have an in principle problem with the sentence, although I think some clarification is required. The Hebrew Bible article is wikipedia’s attempt at explaining the document that Jews refer to as the Tanakh/ch/h. The article I write are mainly about Jewish liturgy and I refer to Tanach and link to Tanach which is redirect to Hebrew Bible. It’s also true that Christian’s refer to the first set of books forming their two part bible as the "Old Testament" because it contains mostly although not exactly the same scripts What isn’t true is that Tanach = Hebrew Bible also equates to "Old Testament". An academically correct version of the lead sentence would be: "The Tanakh, known in English as the Hebrew Bible, is also the source document for the first part of the Christian Bible referred to as the 'Old Testament' in Christianity." I think a follow on sentence explaining what the acronym Tanach stands for and the different ordering in the Old Testament could be briefly explained. Ayenaee ( talk) 17:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) As an aside one of the MOSes says that the guttural "g’ im Hebrew (as in the last sound in Tanach) should be transliterated as "ch" or "h". I don’t know why because kh is the least likely to be misinterpreted. But I don’t fight with the Wikipedia Bible :) so I use Tanach reply


Now that I look at this paragraph, the rest of the paragraph which talks about what the Torah is incorrect. It says that “Torah" refers to the first five books or those with the commentary around them. The commentary around the Torah is referred to as Torah she’be’alpe (the oral law) and has equal status to the written Torah (Jews believe that both were given at the revelation on mount sinai). Torah = written 5 books, Mishnah = oral written down as commentary on the 5 books, Talmud = oral law written down as commentary on Mishnah. So the collective name would be Talmud, not Torah as mentioned here. I’ll change this, because I don’t think it’s controversial. I should probably read the whole article, being my faith I already thought I new what it was :). Ayenaee ( talk) 18:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Adler’s The Origins of Judaism

Mentioned in the works cited but not cited in the body. It’s an important work and perspective that should be included in the article.

Its conclusions seem fairly persuasive and I think could provide some refinement to the third sentence of the article (or at least challenge the idea that that’s the consensus view):

“ Contemporary Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the cultic religious movement of ancient Israel and Judah, around the 6th/5th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.”

Link to book:

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300276657/the-origins-of-judaism/ IncandescentBliss ( talk) 06:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Interviews with Adler for those interested:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6ImIGM4ZDcY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1TN-i0x7g
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vD5VmGkqfAg IncandescentBliss ( talk) 06:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
New book The Yehud Coinage: A Study and Die Classification of the Provincial Silver Coinage of Judah (2023) is very important as well:
http://www.ins.org.il/files/files/Yehud_Coinage_Intro.pdf IncandescentBliss ( talk) 06:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The research cited on the the Josiah page also brings the 6th/5th century dating into question. Widespread religious reforms in his time likely did not happen. We’re still leaning on the Documentary Hypothesis too much. Even if some texts date to the 6th/5th century BCE timeframe (no argument from me there!), that doesn’t imply that “contemporary Judaism” evolved then. (That’s probably more around the 2nd century BC in fact!). Based on the Yehud coinage (one of the few concrete things we have to go on), Athena was particularly popular in Yehud. Mary Leith’s 2020 article is especially helpful here:
https://www.academia.edu/44472311/New_Perspectives_on_the_Return_from_Exile_and_Per_sian_Period_Yehud IncandescentBliss ( talk) 07:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Not 2nd century BC. I mean 2nd century AD with the rise of Talmudic Judaism. To me, that’s when start to see a parallel to “contemporary Judaism” IncandescentBliss ( talk) 07:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
CE* IncandescentBliss ( talk) 07:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oldest?

What is the Samaritanism? 46.196.93.199 ( talk) 21:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Founder

Hi Ελίας Ελίας, thank you for your edit of the founder parameter in the infobox. But I disagree with you that Moses is considered the traditional founder of the religion. As the article states the first covenant between G-d, and Abraham and his descendants was Brit Bein Habetarim. G-d made these promises because of Abraham’s faith in the oneness of G-d. This, as embodied in the Shema, is still the founding tenant of Judaism today. Moses is considered the greatest prophet ever. The covenant at Sinai together with the giving of the Tanach and Talmud is part of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, and where modern Jews obtain the full practice of the religion. It is not the founding event. I choose not to revert other people’s work ( 0RR) unless there’s consensus through discussion. So if you accept my assertion please self revert your edit, or if not please discuss why not here. Ayenaee ( talk) 17:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, @ Ayenaee. I believe Moses to be the "founder" of Judaism due to the modern covenant beginning with the revelation at mount Sinai of the written and oral Torah. And while I initially believed Abraham to be the "founder", mainly because of converts becoming "children of abraham", I have come to the conclusion that Moses is better suited for that title, because Abraham was neither a "jew" or "israelite", although he is referred to as "haIvri" in the bible.
As proof of my argument, there are three big covenants in the bible, the noahic covenant, which is for all of mankind, the abrahamic covenant which included circumcision and the gifting of the land of canaan, and the mosaic covenant which contains the 613 mitzvoth. Anyone observing the abrahamic covenant and not the mosaic covenant would not be an orthodox jew.
Ελίας ( talk) 18:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Unfortuantely, we can't take your word for it. Claims need to be directly supported by the majority of reliable sources. Scripture is considered a primary source that should be understood through later interpretation and analysis by experts, including secular scholars. Remsense 13:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Ελίας ( talk) I agree with User:Remsense. I believe the analysis you’ve given is incorrect, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s your analysis and is considered WP:OR (your own original research) which is not an acceptable citation for changing a stated fact in an article. If you believe your analysis is correct then you need to support it with reliable resources. [As an aside, I dispute your analysis because we’re not trying to define what a Jew/Israelite etc is, nor what an Orthodox Jew is today. We’re defining the founder of Judaism. That he didn’t follow all 613 mitvot, because they hadn’t been given yet, is irrelevant (to this issue). Your first thought about converts being called Ben Abraham or bat Sarah is aligned with this - although not the only support for his foundership. You also didn’t dispute my points.] Ayenaee ( talk) 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply