Talk:Judaism

Focus on Neturei Karta: why?

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)

@Got Milked it is clear WP:COATRACK, and just saying "it not" does not make it so.

As outlined in the revert note, your addition is not about criticism of Judaism (i.e. as a religion and practice), but is about religious criticism of Zionism. While perhaps a stub at best may be appropriate for this section on this page, there are separate pages that directly cover your additions (which do not fall under "criticism of judaism" generally speaking) and I recommend you direct your edits there.

And no, you are not being censured (censored?) you are using the wrong section to shoehorn arguments that clearly belong on another page. Mistamystery (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a "focus on Neturei Karta" nor does it "COATRACK"; quite the contrary. This is a very general criticism of the very fundamental of Judaism as a venerable tradition of pious faith/violation of that pious faith. I have initially edited-in very brief introductory of this phenomena in the conspicuously blank CRITICISM section for some reasonable context of the nominal subject matter leading into the Main article:Criticism of Judaism, although User: Trappist the monk re-edited it to haphazardly add more to the section in an erroneous format/structure (sabotage?) which I have corrected with appropriate format and with additional facts. I will revert to the pre-Trappist the monk edit to help allay feelings of "WP:COATRACK" with this BASIC CRITICISM OF/WITHIN JUDAISM so as to NOT GET AWAY FROM THE NOMINAL SUBJECT of this article/this (blank) section that should have some context. I will add the extraneous details to Haredim and Zionism although that and all the myriad of other articles to dilute the subject matter is indeed WP:COATRACK(ING) which I believe is the true intention here. Got Milked (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1948

The Cre-ator and Sustainer of the Universe has a sense of humor: In the Hebrew calendar, known as Anno Mundi, 1948 is the year in which Abraham was born. On the secular calendar (current year being 2024 CE, vs 5784 AM), 1948 is the birth year of the Middle East country at the center of the News Media. Neither of these 1948s gets a Bronze Medal, nor are they as unspecific as the term Bronze Age, which does not have a basis for remaining in the Judaism article. Nuts240 (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Clever, but what's your point? Btw, the term Bronze Age actually doesn't occur in the article. Abraham, Canaan(ites), etc. do, so I'm a bit confused, but whatever; is it separation between biblical legend and historical approach, or the opposite, keeping the scriptural approach to time, undivided by human intellectual constructs like periodisation? Arminden (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

First representative

"Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people."

And of many others, see Arabs. So why not Jacob/Israel? Or Moses, the first to receive the Law. This (Abraham = the first, or progenitor) isn't the only interpretation. Arminden (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bronze/Iron age parking place

Edit (move wikitext from Judaism to 'Ya...' was rvtd, so parking wikitext here for now: this is not a deletion; someone composed the wording!

Yahwish, from which Judaism derived, began to be a widely-practiced religion first in the northern Kingdom of Israel during the time of the Omrides (c. 884-835 BCE); Judaism evolved out of it likely around the 6th/5th century BCE with its characteristic practices and prohibitions widely practiced first in the second century BCE. Nuts240 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been asked by u:Incadescent Bliss to take a look at the latest changes to the article. To be honest, I have problems with both the status quo lede and the proposed one.

The status quo lede uses the overview by BBC which is not a scholarly source and a century-old article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. We can certainly do better.

The proposed version also has problems. The second sentence of it uses Frevel's article to make a very strong statement about the origins of Judaism. Does this article represent the scholarly consensus? The third sentence uses The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life, which is not a scholarly study of Judaism.

Per MOS:LEDE, the lede should summarise the article. Therefore I would suggest to focus on improving the History section of the article first, and once we're happy with it we'll know what to write in the lede. @Sinclairian:, @IncandescentBliss:, @Nuts240:. Alaexis_¿question? 07:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've made some amendments to this end. Sinclairian (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

In the Yahwism article, the only counter-argument to Frevel’s 2021 article is a 2011 book from a religious publishing house (source for last sentence in quote below). As far as I know, in 2020s academic literature, Frevel’s view has not been challenged. He explains the origins of Yahweh-worship with countless citations in his SBL Press 2023 textbook (the current “industry standard” textbook in ancient Israel history). There is one possible Yahweh toponym that traces much earlier, there’s not even a hint of it being widespread until the 9th century BCE.

From Yahwism article (an updated version of this should probably be added to the history section of this article)

”…while the worship of Yahweh is circumstantially attested to as early as the 12th century BCE, there is no attestation of even the name "Yahweh" in the Levant until some four hundred years later with the Mesha Stele (9th century BCE). Christian Frevel argues that Yahweh worship was rooted in the Kingdom of Israel and preserved by the Omride clan. Nevertheless, many scholars believe that the shared worship of Yahweh played a role in the emergence of Israel in the Late Bronze Age (circa 1200 BCE).” IncandescentBliss (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I think the current version is a vast improvement over where we started, I think think:

1. “of the late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age” is not aligned with recent scholarship. It probably *started* in the early Bronze Age and continued for quite a while after (Adler’s book I cite implies it continued essentially until the Hasmoneans)

2. Moore and Mindell should not be used as sources when there are better and more recent ones that say roughly the same thing about Judaism beginning around the time of the exile IncandescentBliss (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I think the current version of the lede is alright.

Where is this development described in in Frevel's History of Ancient Israel? Alaexis_¿question? 20:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight the article should give to Adler's book. I've been searching for some reviews and I've found at least two which are critical to many of the central thesis advocated in the book. Benjamin D. Gordon questions Adler's reliance on arguments from silence in his review [1], while Malka Z. Simkovich also argues that there is some positive evidence that Jews from pre-Hasmonean times observed precepts from the Torah [2].

Given the fact that Adler's book was written as a challenge to the scholarly consensus and that not all scholars appear to have endorsed his thesis, I do not think the book's thesis should be cited in the lede as if it was factually true, at least not without noting other scholarly opinions. Potatín5 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This quote from the Simkovich review really serves to show Adler’s point:

“Suppose he had opened his study with an examination of early Second Temple sources and then looked at the development of both ideas and practices as he moved toward the first century CE. Had Adler opened his study by examining evidence from the Second Temple period, he still would not have found compelling evidence for circumcision, kashrut, and Shabbat. But perhaps he would have taken pause to address the many literary references to the Jerusalem Temple, charity, and prayer. He would have had to contend with texts that affirm God’s commitment to the people of Israel. He would have found references to covenant, monotheism, revelation, and the messianic age. Above all, he would have found texts that allude to and interpret scriptural traditions. All of these themes are featured in Judean literature of the Persian era, Jewish literature of the Hellenistic era, and later rabbinic literature.”

Almost all we have is texts. There’s no evidence that these were *widespread* practices. Adler’s is not at all saying these practices didn’t exist in the the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. He’s arguing that the best roadmap to understanding when Torah was widely observed is archaeology.

See Mary Leith for details and not speculation about what was happening in Persian Period Yehud:

https://www.academia.edu/44472311/New_Perspectives_on_the_Return_from_Exile_and_Per_sian_Period_Yehud IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I already read Mary Leith's paper some time ago. It is indeed very interesting, but it does not offer support to Adler's view. In the paper, Leith writes:

"In the Persian period, even as daily sacrifice to Yhwh resumed on the altar of the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple, Yahwism began the long shift to a new religious orientation based on authoritative writings and controlled by expert interpreters (Knoppers and Levinson 2007; van der Toorn 2007; Schmidt 2012; Edelman 2014; Stern 2015)." (p. 3)

Note also that Adler's reliance on an argument from silence in the archaeological record has been questioned by Gordon:

"To read The Origins of Judaism is to be reminded of the extent to which the cultural record of Judean life in the Second Temple period is marked by preservation bias. Judea in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods was sparsely populated and impoverished—a backwater—its material culture rather nondescript and austere, leaving us little to study. We must rely heavily on the Hebrew Bible, especially the Pentateuch, to get a sense of the society's cultural institutions. The region paled in comparison to the wealthier coastal cities of the time, and especially to what Judea would become in the first centuries BCE and CE. For those centuries, on the other hand, we have a glut of evidence: the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Josephus and Philo, the New Testament sources, and an uncommonly rich archaeological record of a society that was experiencing pronounced economic growth. Its cities had never been so prosperous, and its material culture never so distinctive, as Judeans sought new identities in an increasingly cosmopolitan milieu.

This preservation bias means that there are perils to Adler's dogged reliance on arguments from silence. The absence of evidence for widespread observance of Torah-based customs before the Hellenistic period, which is to say, from sources outside the Torah itself, as Adler requires, may simply reflect the limitations of our source material."

Given that Adler's argument from silence has been put into question, I think that the sentence in the lede of the article that its characteristic practices and prohibitions [were] widely practiced first in the second century BCE should be removed at least as long as there is not a consensus endorsing this theory. We could perhaps include some discussion of it in the History section or creating a new page about Adler's book, though. Potatín5 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

"In the Persian period, even as daily sacrifice to Yhwh resumed on the altar of the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple, Yahwism began the long shift to a new religious orientation based on authoritative writings and controlled by expert interpreters.”

I’m fairly certain Adler would agree with this. Elites in Jerusalem with clearly defined practices is not in question here. It’s when did *widespread* observance of the vast majority of Torah because the norm for most people. The shift was gradual and I haven’t seen any arguments that widespread Torah observance was happening before the Hasmoneans.

Regarding the review quoted above. There is way more evidence than is typically discussed. For example, I’m not sure anyone can/has looked through the Yehud coinage of the Perisan period and come out thinking that Torah was widely observed in that time period. Torah is quite clearly confined to a fairly elite group who wrote a lot of literature.

http://www.ins.org.il/files/files/Yehud_Coinage_Intro.pdf IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's basically the problem. Adler holds that only elite groups in Jerusalem observed the precepts of the Torah in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, but Mary Leith nowhere states in her paper anything like that (she does not state that only elite groups observed the Torah). So, no. Leith's paper does not support Adler's position.

As for the Yehud coinage, the link you provided nowhere states that those coins demonstrate that widespread Torah observance first started in the 2nd century BC. The closest thing to what Adler argues is when they mention a drachm which they say it might represent a consort of Yahweh (among other possibilities), but when I read the chapter in question I noted that the authors conclude that the drachm was struck in Philistia and that the woman in question most likely represents the Phoenician Astarte, while also noting that "It is difficult to make any assumptions about whether this imaginery was acceptable in Judah, or whether the Philistian mint authorities knew or cared about Judahite sensitivities, because the drachm was not certainly intended for circulation in Judah." (p. 156)

So, again, I do not think that Adler's theory should be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE as factual and in the lede when it has not been demonstrated that said theory represents the mainstream scholarly view on the topic (if anything, it seems to be the opposite case). Whether we could include some discussion of it in the History section is another question. Potatín5 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

---

@IncandescentBliss, you said earlier that the History of Ancient Israel by Frevel published in 2023 (and thus supposedly reflects the current scholarly consensus) supports the two claims added to the lede (Yahwism, from which Judaism derived, began to be a widely-practiced religion first in the northern Kingdom of Israel during the time of the Omrides; Judaism evolved out of it likely around the 6th/5th century BCE with its characteristic practices and prohibitions widely practiced first in the second century BCE). Can you point to pages on which it is discussed? Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

References