Talk:Judaism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
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, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 11, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 15, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Adler’s The Origins of Judaism[edit]

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?[edit]

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

Founder[edit]

Hi ΕλίαςΕλίας, 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]

Focus on Neturei Karta: why?[edit]

User Got Milked added a substantial section on “criticism of Judaism” that seems interested primarily in criticism of political Zionism as an aspect of some Jews’ religious identity through an examination of the Neturei Karta sect’s repudiation of Zionism. Given the marginal status of the Neturei Karta in the broader Jewish community both in terms of impact on practice and opinion, and in terms of their small numbers, and given the total lack of any other locus of critique (outside of political Zionism) in the “criticism of Judaism” section, the addition of this section seems likely to be motivated by an anti-Zionist ideology. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia best practices, which enjoin editors to remain neutral. This section should be moved to Haredim and Zionism. Khane Rokhl Barazani (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2024

This is a clear WP:COATRACK for items better suited for anti-zionism or Haredim and Zionism and not in line with the criteria of the main article, which is "criticism of Judaism and its texts, laws, and practices"
Editor should adjust accordingly or the items will be excised shortly. Mistamystery (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]