This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Judaism is specifically the religion of one people, Israel. Halakhah (Jewish law) defines permitted interactions between Jews and non-Jews, thus setting the parameters for the traditional Jewish theology of the "other." Applying biblical concerns, Jews are absolutely prohibited from any activity that might generate idolatrous behavior by any human. Rabbinic halakhah expands this discussion to permitted positive interactions with those who obey God's laws for all human civilization, the seven Noahide laws which include a prohibition of idolatry. For non-Jews, fulfillment of these laws is the prerequisite for salvation. Human self-identity begins with the negative definition of "self" as "not other," spanning from the infantile recognition that parents have independent existences and extending to communal definitions of characteristics or boundaries that place some people "in" and others "out." We all live in overlapping circles of such communal boundaries, defined by such things as family, geographic proximity, co-workers, ethnicity, and religion. While some of these social structures are informal, others are defined by codified rules determining who is "self" and who is "other." Religious communities and national communities tend to be the most formal in defining these boundaries. Judaism, as primarily a national/ethnic community, traditionally handles these distinctions through the mechanisms of halakhah, of rabbinic legislation. This halakhic definition of "self" creates the underpinnings for the more theological expressions of this concept. At its most fundamental level, the definition of "Jew" is neither religious nor theological, but ethnic. By the emergence of rabbinic Judaism in the late Second Temple period, anyone born to a Jewish mother was automatically considered a Jew. But while this matrilineal descent determined membership in the nation, one's father's status determined one's type of membership. As long as one's father was himself a Jew and had married appropriately, his children inherited his ritual status in the Temple as a priest (kohen), levite, or Israelite. Certain elements of this status remain relevant even today, long after the destruction of the Temple. Thus, while matrilineal and patrilineal descent both play roles in the construction of Jewish society, matrilineal descent is the more fundamental category. Thus, as long as one's mother is a Jew, one is by definition oneself a Jew, a citizen of 'Am Yisra'el, the people Israel, and a participant in Israel's covenant with God.--HIZKIAH ( User •  Talk) 11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Human self-identity begins with the negative definition of "self" as "not other," spanning from the infantile recognition that parents have independent existences and extending to communal definitions of characteristics or boundaries that place some people "in" and others "out." We all live in overlapping circles of such communal boundaries, defined by such things as family, geographic proximity, co-workers, ethnicity, and religion. While some of these social structures are informal, others are defined by codified rules determining who is "self" and who is "other." Religious communities and national communities tend to be the most formal in defining these boundaries. Judaism, as primarily a national/ethnic community, traditionally handles these distinctions through the mechanisms of halakhah, of rabbinic legislation. This halakhic definition of "self" creates the underpinnings for the more theological expressions of this concept. --HIZKIAH ( User •  Talk) 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon first visiting Judaism, I noticed use of the term "BC" right away in terms of the era, and there is also usage of "BCE", "CE", and "AD". Generally, Wikipedia suggests that we only use one era notation per article, so I was wondering what we might need to do about this. A compromise I think we should use here is the usage of "BC", but usage of "CE" for years after 1 CE. It would be using both eras, but it would solve the annoying problem of when people tend to add "BC" instead of "BCE" when editing. Any other suggestions?. — RunningAway 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"BC" looks fine to me.--HIZKIAH ( User •  Talk) 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BCE and CE do fine. Hizkiah, I'm not sure whether you understand that in that case we are referring to Yoshke when giving years of before the common era. -- Bear and Dragon 15:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the notation from neutral BCE/CE. BC means "Before Christ" and AD means Anno Domini (Jesu Christi) - highly inappropriate in Judaism-related articles because a neutral alternative BCE/CE exists and is commonly used. ← Humus sapiens ^{ну ?} 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the newly arrived, CE means "Christian Era" and BCE means "Before Christian Era". This is an attempt to make consistent BC/AD which is mixed English and Latin. Some misguided atheists try to claim that CE refers to "Common Era", but they are obviously detached from reality. Hoserjoe

"Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." [1]

We should restore "Criticism" section to be more NPOV. Christianity and Islam article have Criticism section. Vapour

We should yes. Mikebloke 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that it can't possibly be true that Judaism has 14 and 18 million followers at the same time. Why doesn't someone correct the number?

That's what Jewish population says, I'm not sure why you decided to choose one of those values as being more correct than the other, and remove the 18 million value. -- ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge

The second sentence is a fragment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zazaban ( talk • contribs) 24 January 2007.

Actually, I didn't add the above, but returned it after it was deleted. It was added by an anon. Zazaban 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the ungrammatical second sentence. I also changed "Hebrews" to "Israel" because it is the prefered term both in the bible and works by Biblical historians (e.g. John Bright, Y. Kaufmann). I also added "Talmud" because of course the Hebrew Bible does not refer to the Jews as such. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer the "note" before "contents". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.14.226.236 ( talk) 11:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I edited a sentence to make two corrections. First, the Hebrew Bible does not refer to the Torah. Second, it does not present this history of the Children (or People) of Israel from the beginnings of time. I do not know why Shaul would revert my corrections but it is so inexplicable it verges on vandalism. this is an encyclopedia and has to meet a minimum standard of accuracy. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The hebrew Bible does refer to the Torah in numerous places "es divrei hatorah hazeh" and also "es divrei sefer hatorah hazos". Rashi actually explains why in some places it says "hazos" and in others it says "hazeh". Also, the Bible does relate the history of the Bnei Yisroel from their inception. It starts with Abraham in the book of Genesis, and continues until the entry of the Jewish people into the land of Israel in the book of Dvarim. Accusations of vandalism would best be left to situations where the accuser has a clear knowledge of the subject matter. 38.117.213.19 ( talk)

I am afraid that in both cases you misinterpret what I wrote. I know you meant well because I agree with both of your claims, but you misunderstand me since neither claim responds to what I actually wrote. Just as I assum you acted in goo faith, you should too. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

io:Judaismo - thank you, io:User:Joao Xavier 12:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the mentioned sacrifices should be specified. Isn't it "notable" that the Jewish nation with its nuclear weapons engages in such ancient rites? 24.64.165.176 03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm... huh? There are no sacrificed animals in Judaism today. And what does that have to do with nuclear weapons? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Any who, who said it was the Jewish Nation has nuclear weapons. The secular zionist nation has nuclear capabilities. -- Shuli 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The original posters post is quite obviously a ruse, some teenager (or someone with a similar mentality) trying to be funny, and sadly failed. I know that Israel has admitted to having nuclear weapons (Although I cant find where they said it) but I dont see why they shouldnt be able to when everyone else is rushing to get them. An article where they feel they found them in israel (Possiably) is here [2]

I changed "Hebrew Bible" to "Tanakh" in the first sentence of the section "Traditional view of the development of Judaism". This is consistent with the word used in the first paragraph of the article. Additionally "Hebrew Bible" links to a page on the term "Hebrew Bible", not the Tanakh itself. -- Steven J. Anderson 05:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed a number of external links. I did it one link per edit to make it easy for others to check my work. I'm trying to get the section in shape to get rid of the cleanup tag. Does it make sense to link to external pages in Hebrew since this page is for English speakers? (I didn't remove any links to pages in Hebrew, just wondering what others think) Comments here or at my talk page.-- Steven J. Anderson 02:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed a number of internal links that duplicate the Judaism portal. WP:MOS discourages gratuitous lists of links. Steven J. Anderson 02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Final paragraph:

In pre-Constantinian late antiquity and even after, Judaism was extremely attractive to a substantial percentage of the Greco-Roman world. However, the numbers of Gentiles who actually undertook circumcision and the obligations of Sabbath observance were actually many fewer than those who found Judaism otherwise attractive. Without formal conversion, these Gentiles remained outside of Judaism.

What has this to do with the traditional view of the development of Judaism?-- Steven J. Anderson 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also consider the preceding paragraph:

Common editions of the Talmud today have the Mishnah followed by its associated Gemara commentary. Then, the next Mishnah, often only a few lines or short paragraph, followed by the commentary relevant to that Mishnah which may be pages long, and so on until that particular tractate of Mishnah is completed. There may be many chapters of Mishnah in any given tractate (Ma'sechta in Hebrew).

I can't see what this description of the page layout of the Talmud has to do with the traditional view of the development of Judaism. I'm sure it would be fine in an article or section on the Talmud. I'm in favor of removing both, but don't want to remove that much text without seeking consensus first.-- Steven J. Anderson 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted both after a week without comments. -- Steven J. Anderson 15:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm glad you took these out. I didn't even see your comment on Talk: until after I was already wondering about those two paragraphs myself, particularly the last one. I was puzzling over the oxymoron "pre-Constantinian late antiquity", asking myself, hmmm, now when would that be? I also found the unsourced claim that "Judaism was extremely attractive to a substantial percentage of the Greco-Roman world" highly unlikely or at least exaggerated hyperbole. As I read through the section, I thought it suddenly deteriorated and went askew upon reaching those paragraphs. Good move removing. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the sources tag. Just about every sentence in this section has at least one claim that needs to be cited.-- Steven J. Anderson 06:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be a nag, i'm not helping but, this article really is too long, break it up into other articles, simplify it and, try to make it a feature article - this is such an important subject yet, it is not an FA. Also, archive this page. If you need help or any non factual work done, drop me a line :)

--talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The sections on kashrut and holidays are full of misinformation, not to mention being poorly written. These (and probably other sections) need a major rehaul. -- Gilabrand 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

specifiy the errors please. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, correct them. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, better yet let us know what they are first - because I haven't noticed any errors. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "ultra-Orthodox" is not pejorative. Maybe you are thinking of "dos." -- Gilabrand 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, many people perceive it as pejorative, and that includes the people to whom it is most often applied. So even if you disagree, it's a fact that most Haredim dislike the term, even though the secular media has adopted it as an official term.

If you look at the history of the prefix ultra- when applied to social movements, it is almost invariably pejorative, a label applied by outsiders to any movement perceived to be "beyond the pale." Although the prefix literally means "beyond" (as in ultraviolet), I think that in the context of political or religious movements a better definition would probably be "excessive." Here, for instance, is the definition by the Online Etymological Dictionary:

prefix meaning "beyond" (ultraviolet) or "extremely" (ultramodern), from L. ultra- from ultra (adv. and prep.) "beyond, on the further side," from PIE *al- "beyond." In common use from early 19c., it appears to have arisen from Fr. political designations. As its own word, a noun meaning "extremist" of various stripes, it is first recorded 1817, from Fr. ultra, shortening of ultra-royaliste "extreme royalist." [3]

Of course, it is possible for pejorative expressions to become official (a lot of names for various groups have less than flattering etymologies), and members of a group may start to wear a pejorative expression as a badge of pride. You will find people who proudly identify as ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal, even though those terms were originally slurs. And I have encountered Haredim who claim not to have a problem with the term "ultra-Orthodox," though I suspect this is more a matter of begrudging surrender to a trend they feel powerless against.

One blogger I encountered, for example, told me that he doesn't mind being called ultra-Orthodox, just as he wouldn't mind being called ultra-beautiful or ultra-smart. That's an interesting argument, but I think it proves my very point: people rarely use phrases like "ultra-beautiful" or "ultra-smart," because the word "ultra" is usually reserved for insults. marbeh raglaim 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of pure curiosity, I just did a small experiment: I examined the first 10 Google hits that come up under the phrase "ultra-Orthodox." This is what I found: two Wikipedia articles, two allegedly neutral news articles, one site complaining about the term, and five sites critical of Haredim. Not a single one of these pages uses the term in a positive, complimentary sense. I suspect you will find a similar breakdown if you were to do a bigger search. marbeh raglaim 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "orthodox" wrt Jews was first invented by Reform Jews as a pejorative. "Ultra-orthodox" is, in effect, an ultra-pejorative. The only reason it's not believed to be a pejorative by those who use it, is because they're so encrusted in their bigotry that they don't even realize how obstinately and obscenely dismissive of and condescending toward people they don't believe to be as "enlightened" (or "reformed") as themselves. That the media élites and their pseudo-intellectual fellow-travellers regard the term as normative is, in that light, easily understood. Tom e r ^talk 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This section has a number of problems. It starts out discussing the historical origins of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews (a discussion perhaps more relevant to Jews than Judaism). It then segues to a description of Jewish denominations, a subject already well handled in the following section, entitled (appropriately) Jewish denominations. I think everything from about the sentence beginning " Orthodox Jews assert the supreme authority ...", or perhaps "The Hasidic sects of eastern Europe ..." should come out and the remainder be rewritten with a view to describing how the Ashkenazic and Sephardic groups developed different religious practices, since this is an article about a religion, not an ethnic group. I realize that the religious and ethnic aspects of Judaism/Jewry are difficult to dissect away from each other, but I really think this section needs some work. -- Steven J. Anderson 19:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your idea of putting Ashkenazik and Sephardic in the section on Jews, rather than here, makes sense ... except there are differences in the practice of Judaism, some differences in the liturgy and also in kashrut and perhaps other things. I think the way to handle it is this: between the compilation of the Talmud and the Enlightenment, with the exception of the Karaites and Messianic movements, the basic principles of Jewish thought and practice were widely shared, although there was often considerable variation in local customs - in other words, if two Jews differed in the way they practiced Judaism it was most likely because they came from two different places that had different local customs. After the Enlightenment this continued to be true - but new (and arguably more profound) differences emerged specifically over how Jews responded to modernity, which has taken the form of antagonistic views concerning the nature of the Jewish people, the revealed nature of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh, and the authority of Rabbis and Halakha - differences expressed in distinct movements (or denominations, I prefer the word movement). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited that by deleting most of it and making the rest part of Jewish denominations. Please look, respond or re-edit. -- Steven J. Anderson 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Judaism Divisions" is not English - I would give it a different heading. -- Gilabrand 11:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think it seems amazingly NPOV that the opening to the article seems to state that the covenant between God and Moses is some type of absolute fact. Perhaps it should say "based on the belief in a covenant" or something like that. 70.191.222.17 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't read the whole introduction, I am an idiot, wording is fine, disregard, I shouldn't edit before I have had my coffee :) 70.191.222.17 13:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Steven J. Anderson. I see you are doing good work in cleaning up this article, but I wondered why you think "people of the book" is only a Muslim term for the Jews. The Jews call themselves "Am Hasefer," meaning "people of the book." Certainly it is not a label I would be ashamed of. -- Gilabrand 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gilabrand. I was basically following links and verifying that they went to relevant articles. When I went to people of the book I saw mainly information on Islam and thought the phrase ought to come out. Then I took another look and saw a brief reference to Judaism near the end of the article. That's why I self-reverted. Nice catch though, and thanks for the kind words. I like your edits, too. -- Steven J. Anderson 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at this:

"Judaism does not have a clergy, in the sense of full-time specialists required for religious services."

from here and this:

"The most common professional clergy in a synagogue are:"

from here.

I realize this is a bit sticky semantically, but the statements fall within a few lines of each other, and are bound to be awfully confusing to a general reader who comes to this article looking for information that he doesn't already have. Something tells me that the text got the way it is as a result of a semantic dispute, so I thought I'd look for comments here first before revising. Of course, anyone else who wants to take a shot is welcome. -- Steven J. Anderson 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another silly statement, of which, unfortunately, there are many in this article. The point being made, as far as I can see, is that a shul can be run without a rabbi (which is the case in most shuls in Israel), but that doesn't mean there is no clergy. Maybe the person writing this is also making an implicit comparison to the Pope - in Judaism there is no Pope with a capital P, but there are many, many, many popes (or would-be popes) with a small p...So I think you can re-write this as you see fit.

-- Gilabrand 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited the first of the two paragraphs. -- Steven J. Anderson 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Beta Israel article says the term may be considered pejorative. Does it belong in this article? -- Steven J. Anderson 09:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I know "Falasha" is pejorative; I did not think Beta Israel is - I wonder if this is an artefact of poor editing? I think so - and solved the problem just by moving an end-parenthesis. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubenstein. Looking a little more closely, I see how I misread it, but it sure was confusing before. -- Steven J. Anderson 11:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not your fault at all - someone else did a shoddy editing job and it was entirely misleading. By the way, in general, I appreciate your careful edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Look here. Is Israel a Western nation? It's located in a part of the world that used to be known as the Occident Orient. Maybe this is hairsplitting, but I'd like to get it right. -- Steven J. Anderson 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Oops. it was late-- Steven J. Anderson 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Israel is considered part of the "Western world" from a cultural standpoint, but I think the sentence is badly phrased anyway. It should be something like "In many parts of the world today, secularism is growing" or whatever.-- Gilabrand 11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What qualifies a nation as being "Western" in a cultural sense? That it's democratic and industrialized? That its residents like European music? Would you say the same thing about Japan? Statements like that seem to reflect some level of prejudice. Also, Israel is located in the part of the world once known as the Orient--and indeed, Jews from that area are still called Oriental by some writers. (The Occident is actually the old term for what we now call the West.) marbeh raglaim 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And your point, Mr. Marbehraglaim? Personally, I am not a fan of labels, but maybe we should invent a new cultural-geographical term called The Accident. LOL

-- Gilabrand 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC) LOLOLOLOL nice.

Israel ain't related to Judaism. The modern state of israel is note related to judaism -- Shuli 13:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That statement (a) isn't true (b) has nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm amazed that people don't seem to understand what I was saying even though I was being perfectly clear. I was making two separate, unrelated points:

1. I was asking what makes a nation "Western" in a cultural sense. I have yet to see someone provide a coherent answer.

2. I was making a small, minor correction to Steven J. Anderson's description of the Middle East as the "Occident," which I'm sure is not what he meant. Occident is the obsolete term for what we now call the West; Orient is the nearly obsolete term for what we now call the East (Near or Far), though it is still occasionally used in limited contexts, such as in the phrase "Oriental Jew."

Now what was so difficult about that? marbeh raglaim 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think many Israeli's view Israel as a Western nation, and also I bet there are many who do not view it as a Western nation. Note: I am not arguing that this is right or wrong, just that this is something people believe. One could write "an arguably Western nation" or find someother way to register that there are different views. As far as I know, the geographical location of Israel/Palestine was never "the occident" it may have been the Lavant, the orient, the Near East, or the Middle East, but not the Occident. When writing about the religion of ancient Israel (i.e. the people who wrote the Bible) I think they are most commonly refered to as "ancient Near Eastern" but this si still a little arbitary. The religion of ancient Israel has antecedants in ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamian societies e.g. the Sumerians. Rabbinic Judaism developed largely in Persia/Babylonia. But Zionism is definitely a predominantly Western movement, informed as it was by various Western discourses of nationalism, representative democracy, and socialism. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok, that was one of the sillier things I've written. I guess I shouldn't edit that late at night. Let me see if I can recover a little of my dignity. Israel, of course, is located in what used to be called the Orient. It has a modern, western economy and its culture is heavily influenced by western culture. It also has cultural and economic ties to the west. I wasn't trying to open up a philosphical dispute that can probably never be settled, just looking for help in making an edit to a statement that I thought was questionable. Thanks for your comments. They all helped and I made an edit. Please have a look and respond or improve it. -- Steven J. Anderson 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Israel a "Western" nation? In the relentless search for the common thread, most have conceded, however reluctantly, that "Christianity, in its different forms, remains the largest faith in most Western countries."[ [4]] In this example, Israel becomes an exception. Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations [ [5]] suggests that the definition of the "West" (the Occident) is based on religion, insofar as these areas have historically been influenced by Christianity. Even the Christian parts of the Philippines are called the Occidental areas, and the muslim parts are called the Oriental areas. Christian South Korea is part of "The West", while atheist North Korea is part of "The Orient". Now we have to determine if our definition allows for exceptions. Is the defining characteristic of orientalism a lack of Christianity? If so, then Israel is part of the Orient, and Judaism would be an Oriental faith. Hoserjoe 05:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Even Russia, a European nation through and through, is often excluded from this exclusive club of "Western Nations". Israel is no more "Western" than, say, Lebanon. Lebanon is half Christian, therefore has more "culture" in common with Europe, but is still Middle Eastern, not Western.

In other words, white skin and German/Russian last names don't make you Western. I'm sorry, but you were all thinking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.155.133 ( talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This section has the "too few opinions" template. My understanding of these templates is that an editor who sees an article that he thinks needs work is supposed to place them and then open a discussion on the talk page about how to improve the article. Does anyone know how it got there? I'm posting this to open a discussion on it, but I'm in favor deleting the template. -- Steven J. Anderson 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

After several months in which no one has defended or taken responsibility for the tag, I deleted it. -- Steven J. Anderson 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who put it there or why, but I was looking at the page history and it's been there for more than a year. Good riddance. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object to adding a link to http://www.torahforme.com/files/Q%20and%20A/ a site that has basic questions and answers about Judaism? Shadchan 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed and no protest, so i am posting the link. Shadchan 21:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link because this article is intended to be a basic overview of Judaism, and I don't think that the sound files at that site are consistent with the nature of the article or with the other links at the bottom of it. Compare the Q&A you added with Judaism 101 or Shamash's Judaism resource page, both of which provide general information about Judaism. I think that Q&A about halakhic interpretation of Torah regarding, for example, Israel's borders or lesbianism are too specific for an overview of Judaism and also represent only the views of one Jewish movement, and don't belong here. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence made me think this, forgive me for not knowing about the religion--or reading the threads--in advance:

Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people

If Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people, what do the converts follow under? Or better yet, once you become a part of the Jewish religion, does converting make you a Jew? 147.153.57.138T.McCarthy 147.153.57.138 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)147.153.57.138

It, in fact, makes you a Jew. "Jewish person" is almost exclusively a circumlocution used by people who regard the word "Jew" as pejorative. Tom e r ^talk 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you convert you become a Jewish person. Converts are given as part of their Hebrew names "son of Abraham" or "daughter of Sarah" because Abraham and Sarah were the parents of the Jewish people. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish converts are not always received as equals by those born Jews. Deuteronomy 23:3 still prevails 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 23:3 does not, in fact, still prevail, as Gzuckier aptly points out below...it remains in effect, but is only interesting from a historical perspective, since the 10th generation of Ammonites and Moabites has long since passed away. A great deal of text has been expended, in fact, opining that the entire purpose for the inclusion of the Book of Ruth in the canon is specifically intended as a declaration that the period of prohibition against Moabites and Ammonites converting is now concluded. Tom e r ^talk 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As Jew and Who is a Jew? say, the Jewish people consist of people who are Jews by heritage (i.e., those who are born Jewish) and those who have converted to Judaism. In Judaism, it's considered a sin to remind a convert that she or he wasn't born Jewish, and in almost every regard they are treated exactly the same. — Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and therefore the "ben Avraham Avinu" thing is, in fact, a sin, since the convert is reminded, betzibur, that he is a convert every time he is addressed publicly. Tom e r ^talk 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not reminding him that he is a convert, it only reminds him that he is a jew. Being addressed publically in front of a tzibur (community) as Ben-Avraham does not necessarily imply that he is a convert as there are jews whose parent's only hebrew name was Avraham (for example my grandfather). LemonLion 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that in the Book of Ruth, Ruth is a convert (and a Moabite no less: Deuteronomy 23:3 No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord); and not only does she get a whole book dedicated to praising her, but she ends up being the great-grandmother of King David; and therefore, by tradition, the ancestor of the Messiah (and/or Jesus). All because she was nice to her mother-in-law. Now that is being treated equally. Gzuckier 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to give fodder to antisemites, but beyond the "ben Avraham Avinu" thing above, the prohibition against Leviim marrying converts remains in effect (not that I'm complaining, just saying, "being treated equally" isn't entirely complete.) Tom e r ^talk 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Leviim are allowed to marry converts, only kohanim can't. 128.197.131.56 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an idea in Judaism, where those who convert into Judaism, never really converted. That is to say that they were always Jewish with which to begin. Those who convert have always had Jewish neshamas ('souls'), meaning their ancestors stood at Sinai. Overtime, one way or another their ancestors strayed from Judaism, but those "converts" found their way back. Thus, indeed they are accepted and welcomed into the Jewish community. People also think that because those interested in converting are originally turned down by the Rabbis that Judaism is intolerant or looks down on converts. This is not so. The reason they are initially turned down when interested in converting is to test them, so-to-speak. If they really want it, if they truly do have Jewish neshama's, then they will persevere and not take no for an answer. Through this means, one can differentiate between someone converting for the right reasons (because he truly is Jewish) and for the wrong (for the sake of marrying a Jew, for example). Mike Isenberg 06:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, would you please control your arbitrary reverts without discussion. As far as I know, this is not your personal website and there's no place for removing legitimate contributions without discussion. It's rude, ignorant and selfish to act this way and you may end up receiving a whole lot of complaints about you being here. If you can't keep yourself under control, you'll have to removed. If you disagree with a submission, discuss it here first. I'm reverting the content, and asking you to stop with vandalism of legitimate contributions without discussing it first. You're not the only bright light in the universe, so get a grip on your delete key. Hoserjoe 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

New comments belong at the bottom. The problem is your edits, not other editors. This article is not about the history of Christianity. Your other edits are either over-simplistic POV or simply factually wrong. Unfortunately WP articles related to Jews are regularly inundated with clueless and/or malicious activists, and to explain exactly how they are wrong would take full time. ← Humus sapiens ^{ну ?} 06:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough to opine that a submission is "over-simplistic". That reflects either (a) your lack of education or (b) malicious intent - not my submission. The heading was "Judaism and Christianity", and your arbitrary censorship is unwarranted in an encyclopedic forum. This is not a Jewish propaganda site for the sole purpose of insulting other religions, it is an encyclopedia, and the submission was useful and supportable. If it's factually wrong, you're not entitled to remove content without discussion, but you must provide contrary information or request sources (which authors will be pleased to provide). If you continue to do this, others will sift through WP and delete all YOUR submissions as "oversimplistic" in retaliation. Please back up your accusations promptly so that others can continue developing this topic without inconsiderate attacks on other people's work. 154.20.137.51 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks for proving my point. ← Humus sapiens ^{ну ?} 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I placed the talk up top to try to get the attention of the inconsiderate and ignorant person who was reverting without discussion - was that you using a different login? Saying "LOL, etc" sounds like you're intent on insulting others rather than improving a WP topic. It's immature and spiteful, not to mention inconsistent with WP objectives. Sometimes some folks get the idea that WP is their personal sandbox. Hoserjoe 07:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am seeking a Good Article Review because this article is mostly origional research.-- Sefringle ^Talk 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the current state of this article with the abundance of fact tags and cleanup templates, lack of sufficient inline citation for an article of such length, and unnecessary list incorporation, this article has been delisted from WP:Good Articles. Once issues have been and any other aspects of the article that may not comply with WP:WIAGA are corrected, the article can be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, LaraLove ^T/ _C 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, the problem isn't that it's mostly original research, it's that a bunch of stuff that is common knowledge has been flagged with {{ fact}} tags. That's fine, sources exist for all of it, I'm sure. Seeking WP:GA/R, however, is not the way to get citations. That is not what GA is for. Instead, why not work on finding citations, or finding someone with the time to seek them out? Tom e r ^talk 05:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"According to traditional Jewish belief, the God who created the world established a covenant with the Jewish people"...

amm.. the covenant wasn't with the Jewish people but with the children of Israel.. before there were even Israelites.. so it can't be with thw "Jewish people". GOER 20:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Jews regard themselves as the descendants of the children of Israel. Asarelah 02:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

True enough. But the Bible does not say that God created the covenant with the "Jewish people" - the idea of a "Jewish people" didn't really exist until Hasmonean times. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Realize that "Jew" and the Hebrew term "Yehudi" refers specifically to one from the Tribe of Judah. All but Judah and the Tribe of Levi were scattered by the Assyrians 2700 years ago. But yes, GOER, you have a point in saying that the "children of Israel" is not congruent to "Jews", but that Judah is 1 in 12. However, Judahites were by far the largest of the 12 tribes, were always intended the house of royalty (according to Jacob himself) are the last remaining scion of Jacob (Israel) and therefore ARE the children of Israel. Today "Jewish People" and "Children of Israel" have come to be defined as one and the same. Valley2 city 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

the article contains this statement that I don't think is accurate "It differs from many religions in that central authority is not vested in a person or group, but in sacred texts and traditions."

First, till the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and drove the Jews out of Jerusalem, it was a religion with a central authority, wasn't it? The Judaism that Jesus wanted to reform was centralized around the Temple. And when the Jews rebuild the Temple, centralized authority is coming back.

Second, Roman Catholicism (and its Anglican splinter) is famously centralized, Christian Orthodoxy somewhat, and perhaps Tibetan Buddhism. But Islam, many many Protestant faiths, Buddhism, Hindusim... is Judaism really so distinct in not having central authority?

I agree that the article should specify contemporary Judaism - however, let me note that the High Priest was not so much an authority as simply the head of the sacrificial cult - not that I am downplaying his importance, but neither he njor the priesthood as a whole had the authority to make definitive rulings about Jewish belief or practice, they just did scrifices. Arguably, the Sanhedrin constituted an authority and I think most traditional Jews would say that it was in effect a centralized authority. However, non-Orthodox historians are divided over the extent to which Rabbis or the Sanhedrin really influenced most Jews' beliefs and regular practices. Finally, most non-Orthodox historians distinguish between the Religion of Israel and Judaism as such, identifying the latter with the post-destruction religion of the Tannaim and Amoraim. Second, you are right that other relgions have no central authority but i still think "many" is justified - but if you feel strongly, we can just cut the "many." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article cites Judaism as starting in 2000 BCE. The "World Religions" article ( [6]) cites it as starting in "13th century BC/BCE". It seems that this discrepancy should be fixed.

2000 BCE probably refers to Abraham; 1300 BCE to Moses. The real point is that there is no clear date for the "founding" of Judaism as Judaism emerged over a long period of time and in different forms. I think most Orthodox Jews would stress continuity with Abraham and say 2000 BCE as the beginning of the covenant. But the religion - understood as a corpus of law - doesn't really start until Sinai (Abraham did not keep Koshe or the Sabbath), thus the conflicting views. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Phrases like "who established a covenant with God" appear in this article but do not belong there. This is an encyclopedia and not a story book. Until gods can be shown to exist, their existence shouldn't be treated as fact. DramonFalling 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Emil Durkheim's Rules of Sociological Method on social facts. God is a social fact, according to most sociologists of religion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DramonFalling. It should say "who believe that they established a covenant with God" instead. Asarelah 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree too - already edited to make it clear that it is according to the Hebrew Bible (i.e. identifying the source of this particular view).

I removed the following statement as it makes no sense to me.

"Interestingly, the biblical text that is considered to be the core of Judaism (Deut. 6,4: "Hear, O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is One" (in Hebrew, "Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad", with "Adonai" standing in for YHWH)), represents this God's apparent intolerance of the worship of other gods."

This statement says nothing about intolerence, rather it is a statement of connection "...is our G-d" and of Oneness "...is One". LemonLion 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction states that Judaism has always been monotheistic; however, the critical historical summary mentions 3 sources of evidence arguing the contrary. -Rich 68.239.48.188 01:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point but the real issue is, when does "Judaism" begin? Some non-Orthodox scholars would say it does not begin until the period of the Tanaim, i.e. when the Tanakh is canonized and the Rabbinic peiod has its roots (and was absolutely monotheistic). Even Orthodox Jews might claim it does not really begin until moses at Sinai (i.e. not Abraham). Which rasies another issue, a difference in POV between Orthodox Jews and critical historians. So this is a complex view and I think it must be clarified, but better in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Several months ago I questioned the reason for this link to an article that deals mostly with Islam and found language near the end of the article dealing with use of the term in Judaism. However, in the intervening months, this edit by this user removed that language, citing a lack of sources. Unfortunately, this has rendered the link in the "Judaism" article nonsensical. The talk page at "People of the Book" contains ample references to its use in a Jewish context, but there were no inline sources in the article. How shall we remedy this? -- Steven J. Anderson 04:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put it back into the Intro there [7], with cites to two book titles that specifically show the Jewish contexts that it's used in. Might need a watching eye to make sure it stays in the article... Jheald 10:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There are too many errors on the "Judais" page for me to note here. That in itself proves why we, members, need to be able to edit this page. One such example, a crucial note of the history of the Jews is our past. That is, it was inaccurately stated in the 'Distinction between Jews and Judaism' section that, "...most of Judaism's 4,000-year history..." This is currently year 5758, meaning, at the very least, that note should read, "most of Judaism's 5,000-year history..." Please see to it, somone, that this error is fixed - among the many others. Mike Isenberg 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I'm not sure why you say "we ... need to be able to edit this page". Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anybody can edit". If you think the article is wrong, be bold and fix it.

The first paragraph of the article refers to "the Covenant between God and Abraham (ca. 2000 BCE)", which is where the 4000-year history of Judaism is said to begin. If you think that Judaism began 5000 years ago, be prepared to support your edit with verifiable, reliable sources. Keep in mind that the article about Abraham says that, according to the Torah, he was born 1,948 years after Creation. That makes Judaism about... 4000 years old. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I say we, because, for some reason, I am unable to edit this page - unless, of course, you would be so kind as to tell me why that is and how I can edit it in the future. Thanks. Mike Isenberg 06:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is " semi-protected" -- it can only be edited by users who've been registered for at least 4 days. So you should be able to edit it in a couple of days. But have a regard that the page has had a lot of input from a lot of different viewpoints over the several years it's existed; there might not be general agreement that what you perceive as errors actually are incorrect -- cf the 4000 or 5000 year history above. So you might find it a good idea to tread softly on the article, at least to start with, and discuss what you want to change here first, rather than go at it head down and charging. Be especially careful to remember WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Jheald 09:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the article was semi-protected and Mike was unable to edit it. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I've been a member for a while, actually, but I couldn't remember my old username (haven't signed on in ages), so I made a new account. I'll be sure to be subtle and tactful with my sugestions. Thanks letting me know! Mike Isenberg 17:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be very hard at all to verify that most Jews believe, and certainly Rabbinic Judaism as a whole believed, that Judaism began with God's covenant with Abraham 4,000 years ago. Virtually any book on Judaism or Jewish history will state that this is what jews believe. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"These groups typically combine Christian theology and Christology with a thin veneer of Jewish religious practices." My, we have given up on NPOV early in the process, haven't we. 199.71.183.2 19:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Folks, since it is impossible to know if such a person as Abraham ever existed anywhere other than as a character in a story, it is inapproprate to date the age of Judaism by the supposed time that he lived. When citing the AGE OF JUDAISM, please refer only to the time for which we understand the real-life tradition of real-life people to have existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 ( talk) 22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are excellent arguments (not the least of which come from reading the Tanakh itself) that early Jews were NOT monotheistic but rather HENOTHEISTIC, and the opening to this article needs to reflect that. Wikipedia already has a fine article on the subject here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.170.134.65 ( talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, Firefox is only showing the first 6 pages in Print Preview, however with other pages it is alright. This occurs on the main article as well as print preview. Could this be some sort of encoding error?-- CableModem^^ ( talk) 13:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I get eight pages, the last one being blank. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)