Talk:Judaism/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

The oldest living religion?

The article says that it is the oldest living religion ("It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[5] and the oldest to survive into the present day"). But in the article Zoroastrianism it says that it is as old as 2k bc. according to answers.com judaism is only 3300 years old (1300 bc). Am I missing something? Herr X (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. What the Zoroastrianism article says is "Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE.", which is not precisely the same as saying that Zoroastrianism began in 2000 BCE. If you'll check the lead to that article, you'll find this sentence. "It was probably founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Persia (Iran)." This does not establish an earlier founding date than that claimed for Judaism. Is this helpful? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, thank u Herr X (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)�

I think Orthodox Jews blieve Judaism is far more than 3300 years old. Maybe it depends on whether you date the beginning of Judaism with the covenant at Mt. Sinai, or the covenant with Abraham. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Original Zoroastrianism and Judaism where not alien to eachother. Xerxes/Ahasuerus, to whom the biblical Queen Esther were queenconsort is regarded as the first Zoroastrian King. And in the Tanakha expressed as Messiah, Annointed by God that is. One may say that Judaism is the branch of the Israeli/a'Brahminic religion pertaining to the tribe of Judah. Queen Esther was by the way, strictly speaking, not Jew, but of the Tribe of Benjamin. The concept of Judaism is somewhat misleading, except from the specific status of the tribe of Juda related to the blessing of Israel on Judah stating that the comming King of the all Kings, The royal caste, so to say, with the Messiah title will follow the Judah-tribe; while the Throne of Moses pertains to the Levi-tribe. This is somewhat contradictory in regard of Ahasuerus gaining the Messiah title in the Tanakh, unless one regards him as of Judah tribe himself; or more crazily as Judah himself. Legend has that he won immortality. Thus he is carrying the same name as that of the eternal Jew in quite so much litterature. The Lasuerus mystery is also somewhat related to these kinds of speculation. --Xact (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also remember that Judaism is NOT the oldest living religion. It is the oldest MONOTHEISTIC religion that historians know of. There are plenty of religions older than Judaism. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

just out of curiousity, which ones? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As I can´t edit in the proper document I will write it here. Judaism is not as stated here on wiki the oldest monotheistic religion, not even the oldest functioning one. That would be Zoroastrianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petterman (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion directly above this, in this section. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the dating we present in the article make the wording "3000-4000 years" more appropriate than "3000"? --Dweller (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please explain yourself a little. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We present several estimates, of which 3,000 is the least and 4,000 the most. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the giving of the Torah was 3332 years ago, while the patriarchs lived some 400 years before that. How should we call that? Over 3000? Close to 4000? Debresser (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Any of "3,000-4,000" or "three to four thousand" or "more than 3,000" work for me. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. I chose for "over 3,000". Debresser (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedantically, (I am a pedant!) "over" implies height. Could we not opt for "more than", which satisfies the uberpedant I am? --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I am a pedant myself, I have no problem with satisfying your wish in this. If I had been a native English speaker, I might have felt the difference myself, but I am not and I don't. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Judaism the oldest monotheistic religion to survive into the present day? May be not! It is stated in the artical about Judaism that it is the oldest monotheistic religion to survive today. The author is either unaware of the Vedic tradition on which Hinduism is based. The vedic tradition is the oldest of the monotheistic religion which is still practiced by the brahmans in India. I find also your articles on Hinduism lacking strong backing by religious experts in Hindu topics. For more information please refer to the online Oxford University lecture series on Monotheism in Hindu and Vedic cultures in India. For sure, Judaism in not the oldest monotheistic religion. Kindly clarify and correct, if necessary your article on Judaism and Hinduism.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Dr. Krish Sankaran

Hello Dr Sankaran. According to our articles (especially Historical_Vedic_religion) that religion is a) polytheistic and b) no longer practiced. While b may be arguable because aspects perpetuate into the modern Hindu religion, it's hard to argue with a, unless we've really made a massive mistake. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, Slrubenstein, there are at least hundreds of religions that predate Judaism. Most older polytheistic/pagan religions are older than Judaism, not to mention the countless small tribal religions found around the world, of which there can be no doubt many existed before Judaism. Judaism is probably not even the first monotheistic religion. However, there's a lot of historical evidence left behind dealing with Judaism more so than other religions, and some of this evidence makes a strong case for it being the first monotheistic religion (at least the first to leave behind a lot of records). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you do not know of any. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What? No. You read what I wrote and just completely ignored what I said. If you want a few specifics, there's Greek paganism/polytheism, most of the Aboriginal tribal religions, Sumerian polytheism/paganism (the oldest known religion in the world), and, like I said, thousands more. I'm not going to list all of them. MOST polytheistic religions are older than Judaism. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Greek and Sumerian paganism/polytheism have survived to the present day? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I never claimed that they had, though. Actually, though, there are a lot of neopagans, though it could obviously be argued that the religion they worship is extremely different today than it was thousands of years ago. However, the same could be said of Judaism and Jews. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence to which editors are (apparently) objecting is "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[5] and the oldest to survive into the present day." So, I don't think Greek polytheism etc. would be relevant to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. You must have missed the conversation I was havin earlier with another user above. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a storm in a teacup. Rather hard to judge ages for things like religions - if the religion changes (e.g. Catholic England becomes Protestant England), does the resulting religion (Anglicanism) date its origins from Henry VIII or from the Apostles? How about Judaism as one of the earliest monotheistic religions, which I don't think anyone could argue with?PiCo (User talk:PiCo) 04:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What my point of contention is with the second part "the oldest to survive into the present day." Zoroastrianism is just as old as Judaism (given that Judaiasm borrowed many different ideas and elements from Zoroastrianism) and is still practice till this day, albeit it is much smaller. (User talk:Starcomet) 02:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my post from November of 2010 (the second one in this thread). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But scholars have now found that based on linguistic data Zoroastrianism could be as old as 1,500-1,800 years old, which would make it as old as Judaism. And the wiki article on Zoroaster, the founder of the religion states, "The date of Zoroaster, i.e., the date of composition of the Old Avestan gathas, is unknown. Scholarly mainstream opinion mostly places him near the 11th or 10th century BCE, but dates proposed in scholarly literature diverge widely, between the 18th and 6th centuries BCE." So if the founder is believed to be prior to 1000 BCE that makes him just as old as Judaism. The article also states, "By the late 19th century, scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noted problems with the "Traditional date," namely in the linguistic difficulties that it presented. The Old Avestan language of the Gathas (which are attributed to the prophet himself) is still very close to the Sanskrit of the Rigveda. Therefore, it seemed implausible that the Gathas and Rigveda could be more than a few centuries apart, suggesting a date for the oldest surviving portions of the Avesta of roughly the 2nd millennium BCE."

If the holy book of Zoroastrianism is said to be as old as 2000 BCE than the wikipedia article about the religion being as old as 6th century BCE is in error. And scholars have found that while Abraham is indeed an ancient figure born before Zoroaster, Moses, said to be the founder of the religion of Judaism, is considerd a contemporary of Moses according to the wikipedia article. It seems the Zoroastrian article should be edited to revise its dating of 6th century BCE. Again what I am contending is the statement that judaism is the oldest religion to survive till today.Starcomet 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

If you're right that Zoroastrianism "could be as old as 1,500-1,800 years old", that would make it not older than Judaism, but younger than Christianity. Your statement that "if the founder is believed to be prior to 1000 BCE tht makes him just as old as Judaism" is flatly wrong, as Judaism is widely held to be quite a bit older than 1000 BCE. If Bartholeomea and Christensen are right about the linguistic problems with the Gathas and correctly estimates the date for the oldest parts of the Avesta as "roughly the 2nd millenium BCE", then this does not establish a date earlier than Judaism since the 2nd millenium ended at 1001 BCE, quite a bit later than the beginnings of Judaism. Your statement "(i)f the holy book of Zoroastrianism is said to be as old as 2000 BCE" doesn't count for much until you find a reliable source that makes that claim. Your next sentence says that Moses was a contemporary of Moses, a tautology that I suppose is not what you meant. If you meant that Zoroaster was a contemporary of Moses, you're wrong. The Zoroaster article says that the mainstream view is that he lived between 900 and 1100 BCE. Moses is usually dated no later than 1270 BCE. Nothing you've written so far establishes a date for Zoroastrianism earlier than for Judaism. If you have a dispute with the way the Zoroastrianism article reads, you may go there and make a case to change it, but if you do, you'll have to come up with something better than you have here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the errors in my posts as I was not paying attention since I was sleepy. If Zoroastrianism is as old as 1500-1800 BCE then how can it be younger than Christianity When Christianity did not exists till after 30 CE? Sorry if I am confusing you with my typing as I wrote that late as you can tell. Here is something about the age of the oldest portion of the Avesta being as old as 2000 BCE, "Nobody knows the precise age of Zoroastrianism. The traditional date of 600 BCE was assigned by priests of Zoroastrianism in. The older Avesta is written in a language similar to the Sanskrit of the Rigveda, which would give it a date of about 2000 - 3500 BCE, and making Zoroastrianism one of the oldest religions in the world.the Alexandrian age, But it is untenable based on the language of the older Avesta." http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/zoroastrianism.htm However I still find this website not too reliable so I did some more digging and found something else, " The seventeen Gâthâ's, probably composed by Zarathustra himself, are the oldest part of the Avesta (overview). The language of these hymns resembles that of the Indian Rigveda, hymns that were probably composed in the Punjab between 1500 and 1200 BCE. E.g., the Gathic word ahura, 'divine lord', is identical to the Vedic word asura. This linguistic similarity suggests that the Gâthâ's are very old indeed." http://www.livius.org/au-az/avesta/avesta.html

Here is a link to a book on google which also makes a similar argument: http://books.google.com/books?id=g2W0keFro08C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=Gathas+dating&source=bl&ots=NwUu4e5Lhs&sig=Lr7CdLuBVrIGK6ztzr7MPXgrUjo&hl=en&ei=g7uYTaeXFPKx0QGZusSDDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Gathas%20dating&f=false The dating of 6000 BCE is unsupportable in my opinion and I think 2000-1200 for the oldest parts of the Avesta to be accurate.

Another book on google which dates The oldest parts of the Avesta to around 1500 BCE or a bit early: http://books.google.com/books?id=r4IFsZCzJEC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Gathas+dating&source=bl&ots=SbRnEBsuml&sig=S4x4GjrAFiITkMgOQsubXhvGTDs&hl=en&ei=LL6YTZW5GqG00QHxrbnxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Gathas%20dating&f=false

What I am finding is that Dating many of these ancient figures can be very hard and difficult to do. But if the oldest part of Avesta (the Gathas) is believed to have been composed around 1500 BCE and "if" Zoroaster indeed wrote them, this would make him a contemporary of Moses or even a bit older. The tradidional dating of 600 BCE is now largely suspect by scholars according to the dating. The oldest dating of the Book of Genesis is said be as old as 950 BCE for the Yahwist source according to the wikipedia article Documentary Hypothesis and the website Rleigious Tolerance gives a similar dating: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm I will continue to look for more resources as I found some during my college studies but cannot remember the sources.Starcomet 18:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

Do you have any reliable sources that state Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I did find a few books and a quote by Mary Boyce, a leading figure on Zoroastrianism, and she states "Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." Other than that, every time I look I keep findig people split between Judaism is the oldest and Zoroastrianism. As of now the question as to which is oldest is still seems to be up in the air as you could argue for either side and we are still unsure about Zoroasters "exact" dates. Here is something else about it: http://www.duke.edu/~jds17/zoroast.html. Some others books that are reliable sources include, THE ZOROASTRIAN TRADITION by Farhang Mehr, Zoroastrianism: Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour by Mary Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism: Vol. 3, Zoroastrianism Under Macedonian and Roman Rule which has a google book link here: http://books.google.com/books?id=MWiMV6llZesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false. I would have to buy these books and study them to see if they claim Zoroastrianism is indeed the oldest. Again, I am not trying to say Zoroastrianism is the oldest but just "as" old as Judaism and one of the few monotheistic religions to survive till today. Starcomet 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

Boyce does not appear to make the claim that it is the world's oldest monotheistic religion. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I need to read her literature to see if she does. That other link I offer does, but I will need to read her works and see. Starcomet 00:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs)

Punishment

NO SECTION ON TORAH PUNISHMENT?

I find it funny how there is a long section in Islam that deals with Sharia law and more specifically how those that break certain rules are punished (ex Zina) How come there is no section here, dealing with the same stuff? Is it because perhaps according to the Torah the punishment for breaking many of these rules are quite severe? This is ridiculous, somebody needs to add this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.144.193 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is interesting, but flawed. Unlike Islam, there is no modern Jewish legal system in the sense that you describe. Some elements of Jewish civil law are imposed by Batei Din around the world, certainly many strands of Judaism believe in heavenly punishment (and reward) but there is no jurisdiction anywhere in the world that judges, eg, murder cases on the basis of what you call "Torah punishment". With that in mind, the right article would not be Judaism, but Jewish law. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That said, a subsection called Reward and punishment might be a good idea - it's an important concept in Jewish law. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the Torah is a living document and its laws having meaning only insofar as they are interpreted in application by the rabbis, I think it would be follow just to repeat what it says in the Torah - besides, this is an article on Judaism, no on the Torah. If we are to have a section on punishment in Judaism, it should be those punishments enforced by Jewish authorities. Dweller's point is well-taken but in many places where Torah is not sovereign, peopl enter into voluntary binding arrangements to accept the ruling of a beit-din. Does anyone know of good sources for such rulings in the 20th century, regardless of country? I think it would indeed be valuable to provide a section drawing on such sources.

As to reward, I am not sure why this necessarily gos with punishment. In US courts at least people are not rewarded for proper behavior. I know that many individual rabbis have speculated about theodicy - some is recorded in the Talmud and individual Jewish philosophers have mae their own claims .... but it was always my sense that most Jews belived that good behavior is its own reward. I know Jews who have told me they believe in the rewards of the afterlife but that they would have obeyed the law even if there were no such reward. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reward and punishment have gone together as a Jewish concept for a very long time. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree strongly with Dweller, because Jewish law is in use in certain communities throughout the world, and in certain areas in the state of Israel. In addition the subject is significant from an academic point of view. Debresser (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You disagree that we should have a section on reward and punishment? You seem to be arguing in favour. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am. I disagree with what you said that Jewish law is not modern. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Err, where did I say that? Of course there is modern Jewish law, but not involving the kinds of punishments the IP is asking about. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, that is the whole point. One cannot write about Judaism's penal code using an ancient religious text as one's source. Instead, one must use modern, reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your making your old mistake again. There is nothing wrong with quoting Jewish sources about Judaism. They are secondary sources for the matter of Judaism articles. Old discussion, old and stubborn opponent. You are dismissed. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

<-I'll start drafting something at Talk:Judaism/Reward and punishment sandbox. You're all welcome to come tinker with it, before it's moved into the article. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "Reward and punishment" is a phrase that will only muddle things. We should have an article on Jewish theodicy, which could begin by saying that Jewish theodicy is undeveloped in the Hebrew Bible; that the Pharisees believed good behavior in this life would be rewarded in a "world to come," and that different individual Jewish theologians since have proposed their own theodicies" (it is important to make clear that Judaism is non-creedal and none of these theodicies is binding on Jews). Jewish legal authorities have a right to punish and to award damages, and this is very different from whatever reward the Holy One may or may not give. Lo bashamayim hu. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Theodicy"? I know we shouldn't dumb down, but we shouldn't use overly complex language. Anyway, come along to the sandbox and have fun. (Pedantically, it's lo bashamayim hee, but let's call the whole thing off.) --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to use the word - I m just pointing out a real distinction within Judaism. PS hope the Torah will forgive my gender-bending slip! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hell#Judaism

Could someone have a look at this? It's unreferenced and has the taint of OR. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But the content seems to be true to the Jewish view of this phenomenon. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Judaism's texts; Debresser

Mr. Debresser, you reverted back a belief as it was a fact! Do all Abrahamic faiths believe so, too? It should either say "Jews believe/claim" or only the fact that they have influenced traditions. Others say that the text comes from the same source, not from each-other. The second source is also a POV! AdvertAdam ^talk 06:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made this edit, however, Debresser reverted it saying that the previous wording is more correct. I suggest that the POV can be changed to a belief rather than a fact, or just remove "texture" and keep "traditions and values". AdvertAdam ^talk 03:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Judaism's texts did influence other Abrahamic faiths. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what half of the population claim; however, Muslims and Bahai faith believe that the Qur'an was from the same source, but din't copy Judaism's texture. The Quran just explains the full history, having different content most of the time. They don't even except the Old Testament as a whole AdvertAdam ^talk 05:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Torah and Psalms were written well over 1,000 years before the Qur'an. There were a number of Jewish tribes in Arabia, and Arabs of the time were well aware of the texts. The New Testament was also written many centuries before the Qur'an. The Qur'an mentions all of them (taurat, zabur, indjil). Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, but that doesn't mean that the Quran copied texts from the two earlier testaments. Muslims belief that it's a divinity from the same God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob. Likewise, when an Encyclopedia writes about a biography in year 1900 and another writes about the same thing in year 2000, it doesn't mean that the second took the content from the first! AdvertAdam ^talk 06:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't say the Qur'an "copied texts from the two earlier testaments". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Judaism's texts, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions" traditions and values are true; however, text are not agreed on with all parties! AdvertAdam ^talk 07:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying Judaism's texts didn't influence Christianity? What are the reliable sources you have for your claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that the text only influences Christianity, considering the Old Testament a part of the Bible. But Christianity is not the only Abrahamic faith, you still have Islam and Bahai Faith... AdvertAdam ^talk 07:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On what reliable sources do you base your views? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no reliable source on this article that includes, "Judaism's texts strongly influenced Islam/Qur'an"--considered to be almost half of the Abrahamic Faith's population. Anyways, this article says that Muslims believe that the Qur'an was sent as a divinity from God (includes the history of Sons of Israel, not copying it from Judaism texts). Likewise, I have tons of scholarly sources that say Jewish Scriptures were copied from Zoroastrians, Christian scriptures are from Judaism, and Muslim scriptures are from Judaism and Christianity. Commonsense considers this a personal attack, which forbids it from being mentioned on this article. Therefore, I assume that this line is considered the same way: phrasing a claim of some Abrahamic Religion texts being taken from Judaism as a fact, instead. Confirming, I think a claim should be mentioned AS a claim, not a fact. I'm ONLY against mentioning "text", NOT "traditions and values". AdvertAdam ^talk 21:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about; religious beliefs, whether of 10 people or a billion, are not relevant to what reliable sources say on a subject, and mentioning the influences on Islam can in no way be considered a "personal attack"; please review WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I only gave you that source because you said, what sources do you have that the Quran isn't influenced by Judaism text. Anyways, my point here is, Islam is not influenced by Judaism text; It's only influenced by Judaism history and traditions. Therefore, I think it's wrong to put that statement as a fact. It can be "Jews believe that Judaism's texts, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions," OR "Judaism's traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions," OR "Judaism's history, traditions and values strongly influenced later Abrahamic religions,". If not, then do you agree of adding a section saying that Judaism text was influenced by Zoroastrian text, from scholarly sources. It's the same thing AdvertAdam ^talk 02:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a tit for tat game where one trades mentions of Judaism's influence on Islam with Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism. I've added two reliable sources outlining the influence of Jewish texts on Islam; now please provide reliable sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Gsh, work and finals started to stress me at the same time :).

(1) I didn't mean as a trade; I was just talking about the fact that sometimes different sources give opposite opinions, so we can't put a source that says the Jewish Bible is influenced by Zoroastrian Text here, like this. The hardcover of this crazy book is continually sold out, and it ranked the best 150 selling books on Amazon, in 2002. I don't believe any of the crap that is in it, and I already proved it wrong in my blog with 300 viewers now. But I can't deny that he's still considered a reliable source, too.

(2) Regarding the Qur'an, this statement was also explained as the opposite, "Second, the interpretation of the Koran is sometimes likened to the study of the Jewish and Christian Bibles.".

(3) Another source also explains the additional historical facts in the Qur'an, which were not mentioned in the Bible. You can check this out, especially the second paragraph stating, "while there are several incompatibilities between the biblical..." (p.157). Also, p.155 states the Quranic history.

Therefore, yes you have reliable sources (which only talks about the similar headlines, as it was copied from the oldest source), but there is other sources that say the opposite; without counting the Malaysian, Indonesian, and Arabic studies, as it's hard to connect to their libraries. AdvertAdam ^talk 07:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the influence of Judaism's texts on Islam. Maurice Bucaille was a medical doctor who wrote apologetics about the Qur'an; he is not a reliable source on the topic. If you have any reliable secondary sources on the topic, please provide them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, my [1] source clearly states that it's incorrect to say the Quran was interpreted from the Jewish Bible (text), which the book was authored by non-Muslims, Craig A. Evans and William H. Brackney. As I said, Islamic sources are hard to find here in the West; but I can contact some old friends to connect me to other libraries. AdvertAdam ^talk 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The source you've brought is actually James H. Charlesworth, and he says no such thing. He says Muslims do not study the Qur'an in a text critical way. The fact that devout Muslims believe that the Qur'an was recited to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel is not in question, nor is it relevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get one thing straight? Near as I can figure, the Jewish texts substantially antedate any Muslim texts. Mohammed decidely refers to "people of the Book" which fairly strongly implies that he was familiar with the existence of Jewish and Christian texts. He refers also to characters and events found in the Jewish and Christian texts, which rather implies he was familiar with such texts. Does this article state or imply that sections of Jewish or Christian texts were plagiarized in the Qu'ran? Nope. The article uses the term "influenced." Frankly, if a prophet of a new religion refers to people, events and beliefs found in an older religion, it is quite reasonable to use the word "influenced." Collect (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Influenced can also mean that some of the Quran is taken from Jewish text (also referred to in the citations), which is not a mutual agreed point by all to put it as a fact. While there's other sources and believes that deny so, then it's considered a belief. What you're saying here is that he took that text, changed a couple things, and added some details by himself then. In other words, if you say both are influenced by God, it make sense; but if both claim to be a revelation, then you can't override one on another AdvertAdam ^talk 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Influenced" does not mean what you seem to think it means. What is clear is that Mohammed was familiar with Judaism and Christianity, and specifically refers to both in the Qu'ran. Wikipedia does not have an "official religion" at all. Collect (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, regarding your edit summary, I think I know what the word's meanings are and I have a dictionary, too :). It can mean what you said AND it can also mean what I'm referring too, based on the two current sources in the article and the dictionary's list of meanings. Wikipedia also doesn't put one side of a story as a fact. Of course it's unappropriate to add a section in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam pages that their texts are all influenced by Zoroastrian myths, based on my (1) reference above. He's a very known scholar & historian and have many supporters too, but it's considered unproper unproven theology--just like source [9] on this article, talking like he lived with Muhammad. It also said what I mean by influence, "Mohammad used biblic narratives to illustrate faith and actions in the spirit of the Koran"

Most important, based on your explanation of influence, then we can also write that the idol worshipers influenced Christianity and Islam, just because their holy books spoke about them too AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather then expounding on your personal beliefs here, please bring reliable secondary sources that support what you say. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just explaining the differences in the sources, not belief. What is a clear belief/theology is the first source to this section [9]; where Busse said that Muhammad used narratives from the Bible, even though many narratives have different details between the two. The second source [10], by Zeitlin, clearly states "Possible Influences on Muhammad's Inspiration".

Therefore, a belief or claim can't be used as a fact in this article, especially when there's other beliefs/claims that say the opposite.

Yes, James H. Charlesworth was saying that the radical Muslims should critically study and realize that the Quran doesn't allow suicide bombing. Moreover, the followed paragraph insists that the three texts (Jewish and Chrishtian Bibles, and Quran) are a divinity from God. Then, following in the next paragraph that it's incorrect to say that one is based on the study of another. AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

AdvertAdam, this is meant as a constructive and supportive suggstion: your English is pretty good, but if it is not your native language, ask a friend who is a native English speaker to go over our grammar and sentence construction before posting, it will enable you to convey your ideas more clearly. I have been following this thread and would have given up some time ago, except it just keeps going. As far as I can tell the main question is whether the word "impact" is more appropriate than "influence." The words are very close in meaning but I prefer influence for two reasons. First, it is a little more vague, elaving room for many different possible ways Judaism could have influenced Islam, and to many different degrees. Impact is a stronger word, and in some cases I do not think that the influence of Judaism on Islam was great enough to justify using the strong word "impact." Also, "impact" has violent connotations which personally I find distasteful. According to my dictionary the principal meanings of impact are:

1. The striking of one body against another; collision. See Synonyms at collision.

2. The force or impetus transmitted by a collision.

3. The effect or impression of one thing on another: still gauging the impact of automation on the lives of factory workers.

4. The power of making a strong, immediate impression:

Today, thanks to people like Samuel Huntington, the idea of a "collision" of different cultures is popular among some political circles. But the fact is, during the formative period of Islam Judaism did not "collide" with it. The first Muslims - the Prophet and his first followers - grew up in contact with Jews and with some knowledge of Judaism. There was no violent collision; Jews did not strike the Prophet or Muslims. At most the historical record might justify saying that the monotheism of the Jews had an impact on the first Muslims. There is clearly one element of Judaism that did make "a strong, immediate impression," perhaps making the Prophet receptive to God's words. Yes, this is just my opinion, I have no source and am not sugesting we include this. I am just trying to imagine what cases might justify such a strong word as "impact" and I can come up with only one. Unless we have reliable sources that use the word "impact," I think we are much better off with the softer, milder "influence." Influence can be indirect and it can take more forms (for example, early Muslims could respond to something in Judaism, but in a unique and creative way - this would be evidence of Judaism's influence, but it leaves room for much more agency on the part of Muslims).

So now we have been going on for 13 days on a question of semantics, and in 13 days as far as I can tell AdvertAdam has converted no one to her position. I think it is clear that there is a consensus for Debresser's revert. 13 days is plenty of time for discussion on such a minor matter. Let's move on, and consider other possible improvements to the article. For example, under Jewish texts, I agree that Jewish legal literature should be given the most weight. But I think midrash and piyyutim are at least as important as Jewish philosophy and deserve perhaps a small section comparable to the length given to philosophy. I may be wrong about this but I do not think Judaism makes the distinction between "diction" and "non-fiction" that the modern West does. neverthelsss, in my experience Jewish values are communicated as much through what might be called "fictions" - poetry and aggadot - that the article ought to call this to readers (e.g. non-Jewish readers) attention and explain why. Is there any chance we can talk about this for a week or two, rather than "impact" versus "impression?" I am not trying to ram this down people's throats, I am just asking for the thoughtful discussion I know editors here are capable of. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and highly agree on most points, as I also have more important things to follow, than a word. However, you haven't got the point of the whole argument. No one, ever, can deny that Judaism had and has an influence on Islam: history, prophets--faith-wise,...etc. My point here is that Judaism's text only has influence on Christianity, not Islam. My oppose is regarding that the narratives in the Quran was based on the Hebrew Bible, while this intention is clear in the two citations. Mentioning the Judaism text in the Quran doesn't mean it was influenced by it; Likewise, mentioning the idol worshipers doesn't mean Islam is influenced by them too.

Grammatical errors from writing in a hurry is definitely not a proof that English ain't my native language. I was born and raised in Central California, where I haven't been around any other languages, even Spanish. My Arabic studies are just within the past 4 years, relating to my recent travels and Academic research on Abrahamic Religions. Thanks for your comment, and I also want to close this soonest. I personally love and honor Judaism and also study the Old Testament frequently. AdvertAdam ^talk 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflict with Hindusim page being odlest religion then

Hinduism page says Hinduism is the oldest....on this page it says Judaism is the oldest.....71.106.83.19 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This page says that Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions. Since Hinduism accepts the existence of many gods, it fairly obviously doesn't qualify as monotheistic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For one reason or the other, this issue comes up every now and again... Debresser (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Main Photo

Shouldn't the main photo contain a Talmud and Shulchan Aruch being that these books make up the core day of learning for Rabbis and yeshiva students (both the current and classical leaders of Judaism)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis and yeshiva students make up a very small minority of all practitioners of Judaism. The main photo contains a variety of ritual objects pertinent to a broad variety of those who practice Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Most orthodox Jews do not want to be associated with conservative and reformed Jews with regards to theology. Shouldn't there be a link going to the Orthodox Judaism page in the very beginning that people can easily identify without going to the bottom of the paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

First, I think you mean Reform Jews, not "reformed Jews".

Second, this article is about all types of Judaism, not just Orthodox Judaism. There's no reason why Orthodox Judaism (or Conservative Judaism or Reform Judaism, for that matter) should have a link at the top. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Some early books I have found on Google Books refer to is as Reform Judaism; I am always corrected about this. My point is that when you say "all types of Judaism", Orthodox Jews do not view Conservative Judaism as being any different than Christianity or Islam with regards to validity. I fail to see the difference between simply making a page titled "Religion of Monotheism" which includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Reformed Judaism, Conservative Judaism etc... Just like Judaism and Christianity do not share a same page, so too Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism should not share the same page as they are two completely separate religions. There is already a Monotheism page and I do not see why Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism cannot both be addressed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism has its own article, separate from the ones about Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism. This article, however, is about all forms of Judaism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You did not address my argument. If I created a religion called "Wikipedia Judaism" where people worship the sun, would that be included in the Judaism page as well? Simply because something is suffixed with the name "Judaism" means that they are truly related to each-other? Orthodox Jews do not even consider Conservative or Reformed conversions valid and therefor consider most Reformed "Jews" to in-fact be non-Jews. That said, why do they share the same page? If Christianity was called "Christian Judaism" (which it essentially is), would that be included as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If scholars of religion concluded that "Wikipedia Judaism" was a real religion, that it was significant, and that it was a form of Judaism, yes, it would be included in this article. This encyclopedia is written for general interest readers, not specifically for Orthodox Jews, and its articles do not reflect exclusively Orthodox Jewish perspectives. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous reader: if you wish to understand Wikipedia, you should start with our policies. In this case, the relevant policy is WP:NPOV. Wikipedia provides all significant views on a topic. The Orthodox viw is not the only significant view. The claim that Orthodoxy is the only significant view is itself a view, and again, not the only significant view.

I know Reform Jews who have about as much contempt for Orthodox Judaism as a degenerate form of Judaism, as you claim Orthodox Jews have for Reform. This is precisely why we have our NPOV policy: our articles often cover topics on which people passionately hold conflicting, even mutually exclusive, views. When Wikipedia was cretead its founders decided that rather than argue over which view is right or true or best, we simply include all significant views. This approach is not meant to please holders of different views, so your displeasure is simply irrelevant. It is meant to produce more informative articles, which this article does. (Hmmm ... is this at all like including the views of the House of Shammai, even when the Sages concur that they are wrong?) Welcome to Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: Ha, well we say that the House of Shamai are indeed the right views and we will follow them after Moshiach comes, though not before because they are too difficult to understand. The issue comes down the statement made above, "If scholars of religion concluded that "Wikipedia Judaism" was a real religion, that it was significant, and that it was a form of Judaism, yes, it would be included in this article." Who determines whether one is a scholar of religion or not? Consensus? This is the point of disagreement. To me, it seems that there is sufficient proof to say that Reformed Judaism is a false (illogical) religion almost to the extent that I can say 1 + 1 = 3 is a false statement. Though that aside I am not arguing the validity of the religion, only it's relationship to Orthodox Judaism; Reformed Judaism is not qualitatively different from Christianity with regards to it's relationship with Orthodox Judaism, yet it shares a page with it. Anyway, thank you for the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

colwidth of the reference section

I took that off because, as it stands, it pushes the text over to twice as wide as 99.9% of every other wikipedia article. Cadsuane Melaidhrin (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are saying here. Can you explain what you mean? The parameter generally makes the footnotes fill two or three columns (depending on your screen width), rather than just one. This is common in articles with many footnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

With that colwidth set, it makes lines of text move off screen to the right (with annoying scroll bar across bottom of article), NOT make 2 columns the width of the screen. This works on SOME articles but in this case makes the only reference section too wide. Cadsuane Melaidhrin (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't do that for me, and I've tried it on several screens. It's a standard parameter. What size screen are you using? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of illustrations about Israelites and ancient judaism

the modern Gothic European (mostly) judaism is not the ancient Israeliteism we had once.

but because the Israelites are the original "Jews" they must be shown in this article. and colorfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.22.163 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jewish population in Iran

I believe the number for Kalimi (Jewish) people in Iran to be much higher than 10,800 people. Thank you. Brashrafi (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Bobby

Do you have a source for that? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No I do not, I assume it would be quite hard to get information from there, however when I visited there in early 1990s, especially in three cities, Shiraz, Isfahan, and Hamadan there were many small jewish communities with a couple dozen active synagauges, a couple of hospital ( I think one in Teheran)and school.

I asked a few friends who emigrated to Israel(Holon & Haifa) from Iran in early 2000, and they mostly think 10,800 a a bit less than the actual population. One said in Shiraz there are at least 5,000 (but I can't verify that figure)

Maybe a good topic for research, I am heading to California in a few weeks and have many Jewish friend from Iran there and I can look into that further. I am sure some still have family there.

Thank You Brashrafi (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Bobby

I recommend looking over the reliable source guidelines. Library books, scholarly journals, documentaries, and online versions of such are more accepted as sources than talking with people or visiting the place (verifiability is very important here, and not everyone here knows your friends or has been to Iran). (To be clear, I am not questioning your honesty.) Ian.thomson (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The 11,000 figure was based starting with a rough estimate of the population in the 1980s, they then assumed that as many Jews there were born as were killed by the regime (!) plus died of natural deaths (in other words, no population growth) and then subtracted from that the the number of Jews who have left Iran since the '80s. That method of estimating is, shall we say, a little biased.

The population is more accurately somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000.

If you want citations, here are a few (all of these give the lower end figure of 25,000):

• Iran's proud but discreet Jews BBC News - 2006 Sep

• Iran Jewish leader calls recent mass aliyah 'misinformation' bid HaAretz — 2007 Dec

• Iran Jewish MP criticizes 'anti-human' Israel acts Reuters via Ynet - 2008 May

• Iranian Jews slam 'emigrant stunt' CNN - 2007 Dec

• Iran's Unlikely TV Hit - Wall Street Journal - 2007 Sep

— al-Shimoni (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ian for your response. I agree with they method you suggest, and I also agree with Al.Shimoni in terms of the population. Such methods are completely biased. My family has not practiced the religion for generations, so I have no reference that way. Although I believe speaking to Jewish people of Iran (or those emigrated to Israel or Southern California) would be a much more reliable source that some online article written by someone with some kind of Agenda (reason I say this, is that many of such online journal or article claim the Iranian president to be of Jewish heritage which is absolutely ridiculous. I am not a historian or a religious scholar with great knowledge on such matter, but as a Iranian with Jewish ancestry I highly doubt the population to be at 10,800. Brashrafi (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Bobby

You make some interesting points, Brashrafi. It's quite possible that the figure currently in the article could be wrong. However, any figure we use here has got to first be published somewhere. That way any editor who wants to check its accuracy can go to the published source and verify the fact that we have reproduced the information accurately. For more on this, please review WP:OR and WP:V. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The news articles cited by myself above all have a figure of 25,000 (which may be on the low side). Are you saying they must be "first published somewhere" does not include articles published by respected news corporations (as in something like a paper in a scientific journal)? A cite to a paper in a established journal would be ideal, but Wikipedia does not have that high of a standard when making citations. Blogs and personal websites (on the other hand, with a few very strict exceptions) would indeed be invalid for citations, but respected news corporation articles are legit. I, or someone else, might check the CIA foreign state statistics website to see if they have numbers. Their numbers would be stronger references than news articles in many cases. — al-Shimoni (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, al-Shimoni, my remarks were directed at Brashrafi, who seemed to me to be arguing in favor of altering the figure based upon his conversations with friends and family, definitely not a reliable source and clearly original research. The sources you cite look fine to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no harm, no foul. This is now being discussed at Talk:Jews if you want to jump in there.

Hi thank you for your response, another issue that just popped out to me is that in the beginning of the article, the population is noted at 10,400, however half way through the page it changes to 10,800. did anyone else notice that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brashrafi (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at this, I can't find anything in the article that says anything at all about the Jewish population of Iran. I did a <cntrl-F> on the word "Iran" and found it in the article twice, once in the body and once in the bibliography. Are you sure you're not talking about the article on Jews? If so, you should take this to that article's talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

you are absolutely right, my apologies, Thanky you ~~Bobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brashrafi (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no apologies necessary. I hope this gets sorted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

The line 'It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[5] and the oldest to survive into the present day.[6][7] is inaccurate as Hinduism, which predates Judaism by 1000 years is in fact the oldest living monotheistic religion. In Hinduism, the believe in one god does exist, evident by the fact that Brahman is known as the Supreme Lord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.35.116 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

First, the statement as it is in the article currently is sourced. Second, although Brahman is known as Supreme Lord, he is not the only God in Hinduism. This is like saying that ancient Greek paganism is monotheistic because Zeus is the King of the gods. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Another point is that the line says "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions [...]" (emphasis mine). The line as written implies that there are other old monotheistic religions and that some of these may be older than Judaism. So, even if Hinduism were truly a monotheistic religion, with Hinduism predating Judaism, the statement as written would still be accurate. — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

We have had this issue so many times. Check the archives, oh you Hinduists. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship and guidance for a zealous deletionist

Hi: The input of experienced editors in building up and referencing articles in Orthodox Judaism over the years would be greatly appreciated at User talk:CapMan07008#Your deletionism and demands against Orthodox Jews and Judaism articles for User CapMan07008 (talk · contribs) aka "The Terminator" who has admitted he's new and would welcome guidance [2]. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of Judaism

I wonder what the Etymology and meaning of Judaism is, just like the Islam page. It would be better if it was added in the article. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.206.223.92, 5 September 2011

Originating in the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Tanakh) and explored in later texts such as the Talmud,

This is FACTUALLY INCORRECT

The Hebrew "bible" is called the TORAH, any idiot knows this.

The TANAKH is the Torah, Prophets and Writings and I would recommend that you asked someone who was NOT a christian to write this correctly. If this was written about islam, whoever edited this would have half the jihaddies looking for them. But it seems OK to write false info abbout Judaism???

PLS FIX THIS BY CONTACTING A REAL RABBI WITH HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE TO REWRITE ETHIS.

203.206.223.92 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No. The Hebrew Bible is also known as the Tanakh. The Torah is only five of the many books that constitute the Hebrew Bible. This is a view held by virtually all Jews (although I cannot speak for Karaites, who are today a small minority) Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Re OP: To say that a Christian cannot write about Judaism is as wrong as saying a Jew cannot write about Christianity. Wikipedia summarizes sources, which are more verifiable than asking people for their own views on a subject. Also, please do not say "any idiot knows this" even if your facts are correct (which is not the case here, as Slrubenstein has pointed out). Furthermore, your comment about Islam is honestly pretty ignorant of Muslims as well.

Re Karaites: I was under the impression they held to the same Biblical canon, and only reject the Talmud and other Rabbinical commentaries. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian, that's correct. They accept the same TaNaK. It was the version of the TaNaK written by the ben Asher family (now believed to have been Karaites) that became the standard text among rabbinic Judaism (after Maimonides endorsed its accuracy). The main point where they (rabbinic and qara'itic judaism) differ is whether Oral Law is binding or not. The Samaritans, on the other hand, accept only Torah, but their version of the Torah has a few (having significance) differences in it (there are a large number of spelling differences, and minor rephrasings, though, which don't have much of any significance in the difference from rabbinic/qara'itic Torah). — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi,

I'm writing this here rather than a forum, sorry if I'm spamming. But I came across the Ten Plagues of Egypt the other day, and their description portrays God as very cruel and unforgiving ("hardening the Pharaoh's heart" so He could continue to make an example of him, and decimating countless arguably innocent Egyptians in his land in the process, etc.). I am aware that some other portions of the Old Testament render God in a similar way (though I'm not sure whether He only punishes the actual culprits in those other texts, or everyone else too).

On the other hand, the modern Jewish people have always struck me as quite the opposite of those attitudes - moral, non-conflictious, tolerant, etc. Here on the page the values listed as basic for Jews are values that anyone could agree with, and all generally considered good traits. Besides, the Jews as a people have never done anyone wrong as far as I know (unlike the other Abrahamic religions, whose churches at various times in history incited or condoned violence on a large scale), but have been wronged more times than anyone cares to count in the last 2000 years.

So I was wondering, how do the Jews reconcile this? Do they still believe in such a "hard-liner" God, or do they focus more on the good side of Him (I know enough not to write the Jewish name for Him, as Jews consider it too holy to casually throw around, and to do so would seem impolite even though I'm not a believer)? I am not religious, and my cultural background is Christian, so I'm not overly knowledgeable on these topics, but whenever I go to a church (which I do very seldom, usually only on holidays and baptisms, i.e. not of my own interest), I get the impression that at least Christians today view God as universally good, i.e. that whatever is good (love, happiness, honesty, ...) comes from God and that God does only good acts. It seems hard to believe that the Jews, being such a gentle and tried people, would believe their God to be otherwise.

Could anyone please clarify this for me? And sorry for spamming the page by personal requests.

94.112.232.177 (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This indeed isn't the place for this, but I suppose nobody will be offended if we keep this here.

Judaism also sees God as being good himself, and wanting good for all of his creation. As any teacher or parent can tell you, to lead people to be good and do good, it is important to have a system of rewards and punishments. This is surely no more than a partial answer to your question, so I can only hope this answer will at least partially satisfy you. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@94.112 ... Any thinking person has to accept the fact that we live in a world of suffering - the Nazis kill Jews and a whole lot of other people they do not like, the Red Army rapes every German female in their path while we bomb civilian population centers like Dresden ... and then there was the Christmas Tsunami several years ago, disease, flood (i.e. stuff that cannot be reduced to free will). Terrible things happen and people die and that is reality today and was surely true three thousand years ago and four thousand years ago. There were slaves, and there were plagues (maybe not as portrayed in the biblical account; I just mean that in this world there are slaves and there are plagues.) How does one make sense of such calamities and suffering? There is a wide range of solutions to this problem, e.g. not believing in God at all, or ascribing the evil in the world to Satan. So, some Jews do not believe in God. But I think very few Jews give Satan the power some Christians do - I think it doesn't square with the Jews' commitments to a strict monotheism. God is it, for better or worse. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Jews 3,000 years ago had no problem accepting the fact that God is as capable of great anger as God is of great mercy - in his book The Prophets Jewish philosopher Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel argued that the Biblical God possessed the full range of emotions that humans possess. I think very few Jews believe this today. With respect I think your mistake is to believe that Jews have believed the same things for 3-4,000 years. The English do not talk like people did in Elizabethan times, or share all their values, but they still value Shakespeare's plays. One can consider "Hamlet" to be one of the most insightful and profound dramas to this day, without believing that it is right to kill a king, or to kill the king's adviser, two college friends, and drive one's girlfriend to suicide all for the sake of some insanity ploy - to think this is to misunderstand why people love "Hamlet." Same goes for the Torah. On Passover Jews recite the Ten Plagues that were bad news for the Egyptians but good news for the Jews - while spilling drops of wine to signify the sorrow they feel at human suffering. I guess people can be almost as complicated as God. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rome

Cynwolff was right to point out that Judaism came to be accepted as a legitimate religion; Jews were granted citizenship as well. But this occurred only after three wars between the Jews and Romans, one of which was so destructive - the Jews pretty much destroyed the XXII Deiotariana Legion - that afterwards, the Romans expelled Jews from Judea. This specific act is one of the reasons why in the 19th century Jews had to create an organized movement to return to Judea, where many of the Arab residents viewed them as aliens. So I think the expulsion is a pretty important event. Hadrian abolished circumcision, the celebration of Jewish holidays, and the study of Torah - what other interpretations have historians offered, aside from the one about Hadrian attempting to destroy Judaism for good? We shouldn't leave out any good things that occurred under Rome, but we shouldn't leave it out. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good points, but the section needs to be sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

sure, but all the material I added comes from the linked articles already on WP. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 October 2011

The last two sentences of the first paragraph should be removed since they have nothing to do with the article and can be viewed as offensive by Jews, as they seem to only be there to degrade the religion. Nash72 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean the sentences about Karaites and Humanistic Judaism? How are they offensive? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Claim of "Oldest surviving monotheistic religion" is not conclusive and should not be stated definitively in this article.

There is no reason while there is clearly a dispute as to this claim why it should be stated in such a definitive manner in the article. I propose that it should state that is possibly the oldest. This is more fair and accurate than taking a one sided view of the matter. Readers should be aware that it is not conclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashanu (talk • contribs) 05:18, 10 December 2011‎

Please see Talk:Judaism/Archive_21#The_oldest_living_religion.3F. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

An inconvinient approach

By Harrell Rhome (From the Temple To the Talmud: Exploring Judaic Origins, History, Folklore and Tribal Traditions and Were the Hebrews Really Monotheists?). There could be politically incorrect scholars on Jewish religious studies. Perhaps I think there's a good reason to show WHY they're incorrect. Anyways.... Komitsuki (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The world to come

Please erase this after my changes are implemented (thank you) The last words prior to the "texts" section mentions the World To Come however this does not mention that this is only half true as it only applies to Jews, non-Jews clearly go to the World to Come by just following a shortened version of the 10 commandments. Also I believe the fact that a strong misconception that the Jews believe "tov shebigoyim harog" many examples it is even used in relation to Israel defending itself one eg http://www.davidduke.com/general/june-8th-the-date-of-the-israeli-act-of-war-against-america_303.html from a white, Muslim funded site, or this one that plainly straight faced lies about non-Jews and heaven http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30414. However in context the talmud also says Tov meharophim teharog "the 'best' of the Doctors should be killed" neither were ever Jewish laws. Also no non-Jews know that three quarters of the Tanaaim were tortured and painfully killed by the Romans which is the context for this rage including Rabbi Akiva who had non-Jewish blood, and was spread and skinned alive, and Simon Bar Yohai whose skin had withered because the Romans had starved him to near death for sport, some even realize this was larger in ratio than the Holocaust. However the antisemite firsters, honestly, have no qualms with lying never did!!! My slight research relating to the only monotheist religion that says 'the other' goes to heaven without paranoia 1) Sanhedrin 102b; 2) Maimonides, Repentance 3:5 both clearly say good non-jews go to heaven if you search there are dozens more trust me i have seen them When the Mishnah no less (Sanhedrin 11:1) lists major sinners who have no share in the World to Come, it includes a non-Jew, Bilaam. This implies that ordinary sinners, whether Jewish or not, are subject to the same rules: temporary punishment followed by permanent reward. Other sources found: http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm You can add Sanhedrin 102b and, Maimonides Repentance 3:5, Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1 as three references among others to the non-Jews going to heaven truth (they do), we Jews are only a crazy level of stupid in relation to intermarriage not mystical heaven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryester (talk • contribs) 09:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't tell from reading this what reliably sourced changes you want made to the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oldest surviving religion?

Is this a joke? Why is there no proper citation for this claim? Instead of citation, there is a link to a kids' homework essay website (where you can "purchase anonymous essays for better grades")[3] and another one is an anonymously authored pdf file[4] on a music website run by Jewish people. I can't believe this kind of stuff is glaring into the reader's eyes on such a major article. Neither of the sources are valid (forget scholarly) sources! They do not even list the name of the authors or references. Will somebody remove this claim of being the oldest religion in the absence of any scholarly sources? And please do not point me to go to some archived chat on this talk page as I have read everything and concluded that it is a hollow claim, unbecoming of an encyclopedia. --70.64.86.187 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your conclusion goes against consensus. In addition, just for my personal interest, does anybody claim otherwise? In any case, instead of screaming to high heavens, perhaps you should look for some sources yourself... Debresser (talk)

I am sorry to have hurt your (religious? scholarly?) beliefs. Seriously, are you asking me to find sources when you have none? Are you aware that "Wikipedia is not a democracy"? Refer to WP:POLL. I do not see the consensus. I agree with the oldest surviving monotheistic religion part but I completely disagree with the claim of Judaism being the oldest surviving religion for two reasons:

1) There is no scholarly source making this claim. Even the kids' homework is not making that claim. So, who is making this uncited claim? Someone's prejudice? I still am shocked to see that you guys are defending an anonymous kid's high school homework paper as a legitimate source of knowledge, to be honorably quoted on the Wikipedia.

2) Credible sources (like Encyclopaedia Britannica [5]) are saying that another religion is the oldest surviving religion. On the Wikipedia article on Hinduism, the exact same claim is made but with reliable sources (See WP:SOURCES):

Among its direct roots is the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India and, as such, Hinduism is often called the "oldest living religion" or the "oldest living major religion" in the world.

So, my question is: which page on the Wikipedia is to be trusted in this regard? The one with reliable scholarly sources or the one with anonymous self-published pdf files? Or should we just leave the readers confused? I still do not understand why the name of the authors are not given and they are considered scholarly sources. Where were these cited works published? Where are the references in the works? These essays are saying "God made a pact with Abraham..." and so forth. How can this be even taken seriously if the article is assuming that all the God pact story is actual historical fact? Any way, that's the besides the main point. The real issues here are reliable sources, self-published sources, verifiability and original research (by anonymous teenage prodigal scholars).

Now let us examine the scholar "noel12" from Texas who wrote this high school homework paper. On the cited source, the said scholar claims to be 15 [6] at the time of writing this scholarly article. Do we still need to talk about WP:V in this regard? The other cited source (a music website run by Jewish people) does not even have a title or name of the author or date of publication or anything except the bold claim that Judaism is the oldest religion.

Please do not take this personally or anything (I really wish to stress this twice); I just like to see Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia. Is it more about reflecting personal sentiments or providing credible knowledge, cited with scholarly sources?

In summary, I say that the uncited claim of Judaism being the oldest surviving religion be removed, while keeping the oldest monotheistic religion part and keep Wikipedia a serious, unbiased encyclopedia. Hope I have appealed to your better judgement.

--70.64.86.187 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

70.64.86.187, you're misreading it completely, it says that Judaism is ONE OF the oldest MONOTHEISTIC religions in the world, not "the" oldest surviving singular religion in the world. There is a big difference between both statements in English (not just in American English, but all fluent varieties of it). That one bad source (which I removed) was one of many other (good) sources for that statement, so the statement is not disqualified because of that one bad (and now removed) source. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, assume good faith, your statement "I am sorry to have hurt your (religious? scholarly?) beliefs" was inappropriate and is totally out of line. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Ian, thanks for the English lesson; sorry for being loud. Don't think citing homework papers is a molehill issue on an encyclopedia. Any way, cheers(?)! (Not sure if you drink)--70.64.86.187 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

IP user, regarding "oldest religion," the article does not claim that, it claims it is one of (implying there are more than one) the oldest monotheistic religions. Citations are already given for that part, neither of which are the ones you mentioned.

The citations you mention are for the second half of the sentence discussed in the first paragraph. That one states that Judaism is the oldest monotheistic (implied because of the first part of the sentence) to survive into the present. The two cites for this part, as you pointed out, are not exactly the best. I have added another one that is better (from PBS). That PBS article states "Judaism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion, arising in the eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C.E." As added explanation for you, the next oldest after Judaism is Zoroastrianism (whose status of "monotheistic" is debatable depending on perspective and period), which arose sometime in the first millennium BCE (thus why it is later than Judaism, which originated, by some accounts, in the second millennium as quoted above).

Please also read Talk:Judaism/Archive_21#The_oldest_living_religion.3F as pointed out by Debresser earlier on this talk page — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we restructure the sentence that it implies oldest living monotheitic religion? Because it totally gives the wrong impression, there are religions such as Hinduism, though not monotheitic, did date as old as 1700 BC, the time when the Rigveda was written. Plus the citation given is restricting itself to only the Middle East, nowhere is the rest of the world mentioned, could you please search for an alternate citation? Cheers! Écrivain (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems that haunts this article, and that on Hinduism and others, is the very issue of continuity. All mainstream movements of Judaism today claim continuity with the religion of Moses or even of Abraham, but some historians view Judaism as dating back to the 1st century CE. Obviously, the inhabitants of Judea and the Galilee (and Babylonia) in the first century had grand-parents, great-grandparents, greeat-great-grand parents, but the religion they practiced was different in major ways. Likewise, some historians view Hinduism as a religion that emerged in the 19th century (Pankaj Mishra for example argues that it was invented by the British and their Brahmin allies as an instrument for their policy of indirect rule and divide and conquer (dividing Hindus and Muslims) in the 19th century). It incorporated texts dating back thousands of years (like Judaism) and diverse practices ... but it is not at all clear that all inhabitants of the subcontinent (excepting Muslims and Sikhs and other religions not considered Hindu) in the 18th or 17th century believed that they were practicing the same religion and that their religion was called Hinduism. Andif we say that Jews today practice a religion that incorporates and interprets texts dating back to three or four thousand years ago, Christians can say the same thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism as a religion that emerged in the 19th century is purely uncited and absurd. The British had done nothing,but be the common enemy for all people in India, regardless of faith - a fact that any self respecting Indian will give a nod to (Read this for the reason of Pankaj Mishra's ideology here ;) ) . Firstly, one aspect which might be difficult for non-followers of Hinduism to fathom is that Hinduism is not a religion, but a way of life, hence being referred to as 'religious tradition' rather than a religion in History of Hinduism. This common culture that pervaded the Indian way of life was prevalent from 2000 BC, when the Vedic Sanskrit grammar was drawn up, and the word 'Hindu' first appeared in mainstream culture. No one sage, scholar or teacher advocated Hinduism, it was something that was derived from nature worship that lead to a culture and a way of living, and in modern terms - a 'religion'. And by the fact you stated saying its unclear as to the nature of the religion practised in the Indian subcontinent in the 17th and 18th century, let's make it clear, a 2 min walk from my home is a 1000 year old Hindu temple still active - Pataleshwar caves, and so are many temples throughout the country. Initially it started with the Hindu culture, with Islam arriving via conquests and trade relations - here So, leaving that false fact, yes, you're right, the issue of continuity haunts this article. As you pointed out by the 'differences over the years' part, no one religion burst to its present form, it was shaped by the current events of every time and modified unwittingly by man for his convenience. All we can do at present is search for solid, reliable, unbiased sources to correct this fact as best as possible :) , Regards --Écrivain (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote "some historians" and that is all I meant. You on the other hand speak for all billion Indians, and if any of them do not agree with you they drop into the "not self-respecting" category, and if a historian disagrees with you they are just wrong. Well, ho hum, we have seen this kind of POV-blindness over and over again at WP. Fortunately, our encyclopedia is governed by an NPOV policy which means that any self-respecting WP editor strives to include all significant views, especially ones we personally disagree with, because this is how knowledge grows. Sorry to have hurt your feelings! :) Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

None of my feelings were hurt. Why did you suppose so? In any case, your "problem" here seems to be based on a misunderstanding. The article says that Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion to survive till present day. What is incorrect about that? Debresser (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry my friend. I really didn't mean to impose my ideas, sorry if it seemed so, I truly am. I did agree with you on many levels, just the 2 I didn't. I do not wish to challenge anyone nor be biased in any way. Yes, the 'self respecting' part was an overstatement, and I regret it. Even I want to know the facts, and am trying to find it too, but the shroud of history is playing with me :P . Once again, no offence :) Écrivain (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

General Remarks on Judaism in Wikipedia

My constant online survey of the many pages written on this subject when in search of information frequently fill me with frustration because of two things: 1) the use of BC/AD instead of the neutral BCE/CE is still commonplace, and Judaism does not define time in terms of Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Christian religion considers to be the "Christ," or Messiah" but Judaism does not (this is also a problem when looking up Christian and Islamic references); and 2) Christian contributors to Judaic entries commonly substitute the words "Old Testament" for books as varied as the Tanakh, the Torah, the Septaguint, and any other books originating with Judaism. In addition, Christian contexts of the order of books in the Tanakh frequently fall ignorant to one of the primary differences between Tanakh and any "Old Testament," from any Christian sect — the movement of the book of Malachi to the end of the Old Testament, to preface the coming gospels of the Christian Testament, when the Tanakh ends with Chronicles. The entry on Elijah is one such piece that made that mistake, and while I fixed it as best I could, my editing knowledge is not up to the task of moving one section within an article to a different placer in that article. Thanks for reading. Rtelkin (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the right place for such discussions - noting that "Tanakh" != "Old Testament" so fights over ordering of books is pretty useless. "Old Testament" is far more common that "Tanakh" in general references, and asking that references must abide by orthodox principles is not found in WP:RS. For using year numbering, alas - the general world uses the same system, and asking that Wikipedia use another system would be rather confusing to readers for whom the religious implication is unlikely to hold much weight. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Also, this article uses BCE/CE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You might get a better response and more support at WT:WikiProject Judaism. This page is intended for discussion about how to improve the article about Judaism, not for a general discussion of Jewish topics. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Caption correction

"Zachreinu" in one of the pictures does not mean 'we will remember,' as is translated in the caption. It means 'remember us.' Someone should correct this. -MH 38.117.214.70 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Correct; good catch. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

I don't know where I'd put it in the article unless it were to get it's own section, but I really think that the article should at least very briefly mention its symbols- the Star of David, the menorah, and the two tablets with the commandments. It's interesting as I went to this article expecting to be easily linked to the Star of David using a CTRL-F, yet there's no mention of the Star, and no mention of either three as a symbol representing the faith. What I would truly recommend would be a more detailed piece that would list their history as symbols, and their origins. Mike44456 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is enough material to have its own section, but I'm not sure — as with you — where it would go in the current content. If these were added (you might also consider the paganish ḫamsa as well), it should be emphasized that none of these are "official" symbols within Judaism (Judaism doesn't use symbols or symbolism in the same way as christianity uses the crucifix and the fish), even though some have adopted them. (At the same time, others scorn these supposed Jewish items as being used as symbols of Judaism.) I think the more important symbols to the Jewish faith of their faith is circumcision and the blue thread of tzitziyot, but neither of these are used as symbols in the same way that xians use theirs. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And of course the words in a Mezuzah - the form of which is fairly uniform. Collect (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As al-Shimoni mentioned correctly, these are not official symbols, and all three of them are subject of dispute as to their correct form and their origin. So I see two very good reasons not to give these symbols more importance in this article. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from "Jewism"

Is "Jewism" as a redirect proper?

Dictionary dot com has "No results found for Jewism".

Merriam-Webster has "dated sometimes disparaging".

(For the Merriam-Webster page click on Merriam-Webster's entry in this Google search.)

My feeling is that it should be removed as a redirect. Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The redirect page is visited about 200 times a month. Whether we like it or not, it seems to be a useful redirect for some readers. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—you say that it is a "useful" redirect. I think the redirect is unnecessary and problematic because of its negative undertones. Merriam-Webster says that it is "sometimes disparaging". Stormfront (website) can be seen using the term [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t55121/ here.] In my opinion we should not be reinforcing a term of disparagement to Jews. The word Jew will lead any reader to the term Judaism. We should not be tacitly condoning the use of an offensive term of reference by employing it as a redirect as doing so legitimizes it and its implications which I feel are gratuitously negative. Most dictionaries do not even contain the term:

"Jewism - no dictionary results".

"Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia."

"Jewism was not found".

Many more examples can be found and this should not be surprising because its use is to cause offense, consequently our utilitarian use of it as a redirect is offensive in and of itself. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a request for further input here. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The first Google hit I got for Jewism is Merriam-Webster, which describes the term as "dated sometimes disparaging".

We're not "reinforcing" the use of the term. It is being used by readers, approximately 200 per month. If you don't like it, the place to discuss it is WP:Requests for deletion, not WP:JUDAISM. But please see WP:RfD#Neutrality of redirects:

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

At 200 monthly visits, it's hard to argue that it's "unlikely to be useful". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—these are not 200 legitimate hits. This is one person searching 200 times.

wordcentral: "No entries found that match Jewism."

infoplease: "Search Results: jewism; No documents found"

dictionary.infoplease: "Spelling Check for jewism; Hmmm… that doesn't look right."

factmonster: "Search Results: jewism; Did you mean: jewess; No documents found"

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: "Do you mean: Jewish"

yahoo.com/reference/dictionary: "Your search - Jewism did not match any document."

thesaurus.com: "Jewism - no thesaurus results"

m.dictionary.com: "Did you mean Jahwism?"

thefreedictionary: "Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia."

dictionary.net: "What does Jewism mean? No definition found"

macmillandictionary: "Sorry, no search result for Jewism."

oxfordlearnersdictionaries: "Sorry, no search result for Jewism"

dictionary.com: "Jewism - no dictionary results "

Do we have to pretend that this is a term in common use? Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your clairvoyance concerning our readers notwithstanding, WP:RfC is the proper forum to discuss deleting a redirect. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—what reputable publication would ever employ a word like "Jewism"? It is a word that is never used. Dictionaries reflect usage. They don't carry the word because it is virtually unused. "Jewism" is obviously a merging of "Jew" with "Judaism". That sort of mirth should not be paraded about in the utilitarian function of a "redirect". It is not Wikipedia's role to find employment for unusual and off-color terms. Merriam-Webster, the only reputable dictionary listing that term, points out that it can be disparaging. Would we use the term "Kike" as a redirect to the article called "Jew"? If an article called "Jewism" existed it would in fact not necessarily be offensive if it were reliably sourced and balanced. It is the employment of the word in a utilitarian fashion without any accompanying commentary that is offensive. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. WP:Redirects for deletion is that way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—thanks interacting over this issue. Can I ask you—how do you determine how many visits a page receives in a month? I'm not up to speed on this obviously. I'd appreciate your assistance. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Use this tool. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting, Malik Shabazz. You've also given me good advice above about how to proceed and the applicable concerns. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could approach it from a different direction. Is there a way for the redirect hatnote to say something to the effect of "Redirect from Jewism, a term that a major dictionary describes as 'dated, sometimes disparaging,'" with a reference to M-W? I suggest it be specifically in the hatnote for the redirect, because if someone comes to the article normally, there is no reason to bring it up. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oldest

The introduction states that Judaism is considered to be the oldest surviving monotheistic religion. The is clearly false as Hinduism is older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.82.13 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This question comes up quite often. There should be a FAQ. This seems to be the last such discussion. The article claims "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and the oldest to survive into the present day." Both parts of the sentence are cited. Claims that Hinduism is monotheistic are tricky. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The citation for this claim only addresses Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What about Zoroastrianism, which is decidedly monotheistic and practiced today? From elsewhere on Wikipedia: historians place its founding around 1500-1200 BCE and can only trace Israelite history back to the 11th century BCE. Surely this is enough to soften the definite claim of "oldest" to "one of the oldest"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.129.96 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion linked to above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please also see the [sourced] sentence in the article that precedes the claim you're disputing. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I just now reverted this edit to the lead. I think the basic idea is correct: the definition should be first. But the qualifiers "ethnically" and "religiously" were not neutral, rather the editors opinion. Which is why I reversed the whole edit. I do think though, that we should implement the change he proposes, perhaps without these two words. Opinions? Debresser (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support that. Those exact qualifiers are not necessary. Further improvements could be made, but simply removing the qualifiers is a good start. Gregcaletta (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

The article says: "Judaism (from the Latin Iudaismus, derived from the Greek Ioudaïsmos, and ultimately from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah";[1][2] in Hebrew: יַהֲדוּת, Yahadut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos[3]) is the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jewish people."

well, i think more accurate to say that: "way of life of many jews". because a great number of people we could consider as "jews" just have nothing to do with judaism the religion. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.172.90 (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is precisely why it says "religion, philosophy, and way of life". Debresser (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

i think all, or at least most of the photos in the article are highly unrepresentative

they show the somewhat-gothic, brownie-old and depressing-ashkenazic vershion of judaism, there are no artist's impression of practices from "biblical judaism" (aka Israeliteism), no middle-eastern or "palestinian\canaanite\levantinian\isreali landscapes and objects who similar "jewish\isrealite" religious aspects and or values. it seems the article care way more about ashkenazic-jewish customs and making than for sephardic, mizrahi, yemenite, ethiopian, and far-eastern "hebrewery/jewery". i think that a careful graphical revision of the article is needed. thanks people. 79.181.168.184 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you the "We, Sephardi Jews, are the underdogs of the Ashkenazi Jews" type? Because the illustrations in the article are 1. to the point 2. not stressing any particular custom 3. do not show middle-eastern landscapes, are you out of your mind?! If the glory of Sephardi Judaism would be in a picture of whatever that desert in Libya is called, then you are a sad caricature of a true (Sephardi or otherwise) Jew. Debresser (talk)

Islam and judiasm---Jizya

Says that Jizya is paid by male non-muslims and fails to mention that it is only forced upon able bodied men and not all men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami nasri (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Anybody understand this comment? Debresser (talk)

I think it's about Jizya, "a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens". I'm not sure why it's here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably regarding this clause of the "Islam and Judaism" section,

For example, they had to pay the jizya, a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males,

Presumably, the OP wants us to add "able bodied" between "free adult" and "non-Muslim males". Someone should check the source to see if it supports that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see of the source on Google Books, it doesn't specify who paid the jizya, just the manner in which it was paid. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about weekly Torah portions

• REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest

The lede previously stated Judaism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion, but Moses did not come until much after Abraham which would make Zoroastrianism older. Pass a Method talk 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

First, Judaism traces its roots as the "Children of Israel" at least to Jacob (also called Israel), and can show genealogy couple thousand years prior back to Adam. Though the nation did not always follow the one true G-d, monotheistic belief in him by at least a remnant is consistent throughout time. And then there is the case that Zoroaster - a prophet, not a god - was not born until the 5th Century BCE.--DeknMike (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there's any case to be made for Zoroastrianism being older than Judaism (First Temple Judaism, anyway). The time periods just don't match up. Even if you use the critical dating of the Torah having been redacted around the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, the religion itself is indisputably older than Zoroastrianism. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have summarily reinstated the statement. This has been discussed many times here and the statement has always been upheld. And it was sourced. Pass a Method should have known better than to remove sourced information from such a well-edited article without establishing consensus first. Debresser (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen many sources state that Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion:

• [7], This one says Zoroastrianism is older than Judaism
• [8] "oldest monotheistic religion"
• [9], "predates Judaism"
• [10] "first monotheistic religion"
• [11] "first monotheistic religion"
• [12] "earliest known monotheistic religion"
• [13] "worlds first monotheistic religion"
• [14] "first true monotheistic religion"

There are dozens more sources like this but i got tired of searching. I think we should at least reword the current sentence to make it sound more neutral. Pass a Method talk 12:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method, please review the Talk page archives. We've discussed this before. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Malik, I've seen the archives but i still think the claim is problematic. Pass a Method talk 15:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are free to think what you like. Your thinking something, however, does not necessarily make it the case. There are basically two issues here. One, is Zoroastrianism "monotheistic"? The answer is, only in a way. While they do meet the definition of being a religion which worships only one god, the fact that Angra Mainyu is credited in several of the early texts as having had his own, admittedly smaller and less pleasant, separate creation definitely is sufficient reason for him to qualify as a separate "God" in a sense. That would exclude Zoroastrianism from being able to claim to be monotheistic as per the definition of monotheism given in the lead of our article on the topic. Also, I note that several of the sources you provide say only "older than Judaism", which does not necessarily mean that they consider it to be an earlier monotheistic religion, and it would be OR to assert that they do. Also, having not reviewed the reputation of the books linked to, and noting I would have to make a rather extreme effort to even find out the titles and authors, as they weren't provided in the above, something most editors would have known to do, I am far from certain that these sources are necessarily the best sources on the topic. In fact, I can't be sure that they necessarily even meet RS standards. That being the case, I have to say that I know there are several books on Google and elsewhere which are, well, definitely on the fringey side, and it may well be that these are among them. I think that there are serious questions regarding the thought processes of individual editors who seem to assume that articles with this degree of prominence and activity for as long as this article has existed in a developed state would still have contained such significant errors as that editor seems to have assumed, but that is a separate issue. If very high-quality academic sources can be produced which make the statement they seek to add, that would be a different thing. But, to date, I am far less than certain that such have been presented. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pass a Method (yes it turns out I have this article watchlisted too). I took a look at the sources you provided. It looks like you did a Google scholar search and then pasted the results without looking at the quality of the sources (or at least this is what I hope you did!). After all the experience we both have had focusing on how important it is to evaluate the quality of sources, I have to say I'm a little disappointed.

For lack of more time, I artibrarily decided to look at just the even-numbered sources you listed:

• [2] is "Interactive Faith: The Essential Interreligious Community-Building Handbook" by Rev. Bud Heckman. Heckman is an ordained United Methodist minister, and has graduate degrees from the University of Chicago Divinity School and Boston University’s Division of Religion and Theological Studies, but I could not determine what degrees. The publisher, SkyLight Paths Publishing, looks to be like a legit publishing house (it isn't a vanity press) but it's not an academic publisher, it publishes books promoting harmony and understanding between faiths. As far as sources go, it's not terrible, but not great, but is by far the best source I looked at in the list you provided. Interestingly, the actual full quote from the book is:

"Zoroastrianism is credited to be the oldest monotheistic religion. Though many scholars fix Zarathustra's date of inception around 1500 BCE, some believe Zarathustra was born as early as 6000 BCE or as late as 700 to 600 BCE."

which is quite a bit more qualified than the snip provided.

• [4] is "The Mysteries Of Mithras: The Pagan Belief That Shaped The Christian World" by Payam Nabarz. Nabarz is credited with a Ph.D. from Oxford but apparently in medicine (his research is in genetics and cancer) and not religion or history. He is described as "a Sufi and a practicing Dervish. He is a Druid in the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids, and a co-founder of its Nemeton of the Stars Grove. Magi Nabarz is a revivalist of the Temple of Mithras, and is working toward becoming a Hierophant in the Fellowship of Isis. He has also worked with the Golden Dawn system, Thelema, Nath Tantra, Wicca, and the Craft" so he seems to be writing as an insider "amateur" (in the classical sense). The publisher, Inner Traditions – Bear & Company, is not an academic publisher. In fact it carries such titles as "The Science of Getting Rich," "Pyramid Power" and variety of eyeybrow-raising fringe and homeopathic medicine topics. Don't forget that per WP:RS we're looking for sources with a reputation for fact-checking, and so a publisher of pseudo-scientific works based on theories long since laughed out of town by scientists doesn't give us confidence. This seems like a very weak source.
• [6] self-declares that it is at least a partial mirror of Wikipedia and therefore not a reliable source per WP:RS: "Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." A 30-second look at it would have revealed this.
• [8] is "Persephone, Queen of the Dead" by Isadora Marie. It's self-published by Marie through Dog Ear Publishing, a "print-on-demand self-publishing" company and so fails WP:SPS. Again, a 30-second look at it would have revealed this.

Honestly it would have been more considerate of your fellow editors' time if you had done this homework first before throwing this list-o-links up here. Saying as you did, "there are dozens more sources like this" isn't a compelling argument for changing the article given the quality of the sources provided; and saying "I got tired of searching" also isn't very considerate of your fellow editors' time.

The BBC source we currently have is (probably) a tertiary source, which isn't ideal for Wikipedia, but to me seems better than any of these sources I've looked at here. Zad68 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Zad, i admit im a bit ignorant when it comes to knowing what constitutes a high-quality source. I used to refer to WP:REF and WP:MEDRS. Thanks for pointing out WP:RS. Pass a Method talk 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're not upset, hopefully this is a learning opportunity.

As I'm doing a little more poking around on this, I'm actually beginning to see enough discussion about "the oldest surviving monotheistic religion" in what look like reliable sources to me that there might be a case for putting in a qualifier like "arguably" in the sentence. I have to do more reading. Zad68 19:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said myself above, there is a bit of a case here. The question is about the definition of the term "monotheist" - does it mean "worship of one god" or roughly the definition we have in the monotheism article? By the former definition, it is monotheistic. By the latter, the fact that Angra Mainyu is credited as having separately created his own universe, with which Ahura Mazda's is in opposition, indicates that it doesn't meet the definition in our article. Could that defition be revised? Possibly. Should Zoroastrianism be included in the Dualism article? I would have to assume yes. Like I pointed out elsewhere, the 2007 World Religions Reference Library article on Zoroastrianism on HighBeam Research site begins its article on Zoroastrianism "Historians remain uncertain about when Zoroastrianism first developed, but many believe that it is older than Judaism. If that belief is correct, then Zoroastrianism is the world's first major monotheistic religion (a religion that worships one god)." It specifically defines monotheism as the worship of one god, not the belief in only one god existing. That quote would qualify Zoroastrianiam as henotheistic, taking into account Angra Mainyu's separate creation and thus qualification as a "god" of some sort, but not necessarily monotheistic as per the definition in our article. I also note that it specifically adds the specific definition of monotheism which has to be used, which is not the definition we use here. Should it be? Maybe, but that discussion would be better placed at that article, not here. The reference works on that same site mentioning monotheism, none of which seem to particularly relate to religion, also tend to use the definition "worship of one god". But, like I said, they aren't religious reference works. I can and will check the Eliade/Jones encyclopedia on Monday, which doesn't have an article on monotheism available on that site, to check what it says. I think it would be useful if someone checked the various Philosophy reference encyclopedia, and maybe Religion Past and Present as well for their definitions. But I would think the definition of monotheism according to directly relevant reference sources in religion and philosophy are the ones that should be used here. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article on "monotheism" in Encyclopedia Judaica, also at Highbeam, begins as follows: "MONOTHEISM , in its literal meaning, oneness of the godhead (i.e., one God). The concept of monotheism is embedded in the domain of religious discourse, and its full and relevant significance must be derived from the connotation which it carries within this domain. Monotheism is usually attributed to biblical faith as its unique and distinct contribution to the history of religious thought. The significance of the word monotheism in its biblical context is taken to lie in the "mono," in the godhead's being one." This rather more clearly indicates not the worship of one god, but the existence of only one God. Granted, it is a Jewish encyclopedia, and it might understandably reflect Jewish views, but the fact of it indicating the "literal meaning", as opposed to the apparent figurative menaing of the World Religions Reference Library article, leads me to think that the literal definition probably takes priority over the figurative one, as early cultures tended to be a bit clearer and more literal in their language than later ones. But it does make a claim to being the first monotheism in a way which is in accord with our own article on montheism, so, if that article is taken as accurate, then Judaism probably qualifies as being the first monotheism, depending on how you define the early history which many archaeologists and historians of religion see as containing some elements of henotheism. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is good analysis John, I'm keen to find out what you can dig up. The argument I'm seeing isn't even over whether Zoro. is monotheistic or not, but rather whether which started earlier. Academic estimates as to the starting dates of each religion can have wide ranges, and discussions of which one influenced the other and therefore must have been 'first' make arguments both ways. And I'd like to avoid having us do the analysis as to whether Zoro. is or is not "monotheistic" or not. If we can find good RS's that show the argument over whether Zoro. is or isn't monotheistic and show the large range of possible starting dates for it, and how that range overlaps the academic estimates for Judaism, that would be enough to support "arguably." Zad68 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the start class article dualism, in the Dualism#Duotheism, bitheism, ditheism section specifically mentions Zoroastrianism, although that entire section of the article is unsourced, and it is basically supposed to be a summary section of the main start-class Dualistic cosmology article, which doesn't mention Zoroastrianism at all. Granted, these tend to be less frequently edited articles, but the first maybe serves as an indicator that Zoroastrianism is counted as dualist. If anyone wants to improve those articles above start-class, preferably using reference works, academic works, or both, that would help resolve this controversy as well. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have the Encyclopedia of Religion here. Religion Past and Present ain't on the shelf. The rather long article on Monotheism by Theodore M. Ludwig runs from page 6155 to 6162. It has a lot of info, and it does apparently resolve the question, although it will have to perhaps be using complicated language. Ready? Here goes.

p. 6155 - The article starts "Derived from the Greek mono ("single') and theos ("God"), the term monotheism refers to the religious experience and the philosophical perception that emphasize God as one, perfect, immutable, creator of the world from nothing, distinct from the world, all-powerfully involved in the world, personal, and worthy of being worshiped by all creatures. Some forms of monotheism, however, differ about the notions of God as distinct from the world and as personal." Thus endeth the first page.

p. 6156, from the beginning - "The term monotheism has generally been used theologically rather than for philosophical or cross-cultural descriptions of religion." After the better part of a paragraph going into further details of definition, "In the strict sense, monotheism best describes the idea of God in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and in the philosophical systems based on these traditions." So, monotheism is best applied to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, of which Judaism is clearly oldest. Score on for Judaism. Then it goes on, "But one may extend the term to include conceptions of deity in certain other traditions such as Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, and some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, even though these traditions include somewhat different conceptions, such as the existence of evil forces alongside God, the nonpersonal nature of God, God's complete immanence in the world, or the fundamental unreality of the world." So, the definition can be extended to include others, and of those named Zoroastrianism might be the oldest. Maybe. Later that same page, "Some of the most archaic peoples, such as certain groups in Africa, Australian Aborigines, and the nomadic hunters of Tiera del Fuego, have definite conceptions of a high god associated with the sky who is changeless, invisible, and all-powerful and who gives mortality." It doesn't indicate exactly which groups are being discussed anywhere in the article, so I couldn't find more info, but I suppose some of them might be argued by some as older. Maybe.

On the next page, 6157, we come to Zoroastrianism. That section starts "Growing from the ancient Indo-Iranian polytheistic tradition, Zoroastrianism unified all divine reality in the high god Ahura Mazda. Zarathustra (Zoroaster), who probably lived sometime between 1700 and 1000 BCE, was a priest who turned against some of the traiditional cultic rituals and procleimed the overthrow of polytheism." It goes into the theology a little. It then continues, "Conflict is accounted for as the hostility of two primordial spirits: Spenta Mainyu, the good spirit, and Angra Mainyu (Pahl., Ahriman), the evil spirit. Ahura Mazda apparently fathered these two spirits.... It appears, then, that Ahura Mazda cannot be called omnipotent, for the realm of evil is beyond his control; in that sense it may be said that this is not a complete monotheism." The section concludes, "It is true that later Zoroastrianism brought some of the other gods back into the picture again. But in the teaching of Zarathustra in the Gathas is found a unique type of monotheism with an ethico-dualistic accent and an eschatological monotheistic fulfillment."

Immediately thereafter comes the section heading, "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam," which begins directly after the heading, "The three religions that generally are held to be the full expressions of monotheism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ... Although it was the fountainhead of this type of monotheism, the religion of ancient Israel was not actually monotheistic in early times. Stories of the patriarch Abraham show that he worshiped the Canaanite high god 'El in a variety of forms in addition to the god of the clan, and when the people of Israel entered into a covenant with the high god Yahveh they did not exclude the existence of other gods." Toward the end of that page, and the beginning of 6158, it indicates that the "Prophets arose who challenged the polytheistic notion that various gods controlled the functions of nature. Elijah, and Hose, for example, held that it is only Yahveh who has power in all areas of existence, ..."

Got all that? Still awake? Good. Now, to throw in some details not included. I have read in other sources, recently, that the idea put forward above that Ahura Mazda fathered Spent Mainyu and Angra Mainyu was one developed early in the 20th century, to perhaps explain the difficulties, but that since it was proposed the idea has been rejected both by academics and Zoroastrians. I would of course have to find sources for that, if required, but the text itself does indicate that Judaism is the oldest is the oldest of the groups generally held to be "full expressions of monotheism". So, maybe some parsing of language will have to be done, and I will try to find Religion Past and Present to see what it has to say, but the article does provide a somewhat qualified statement to the effect that Judaism is maybe the oldest "full expressionof monotheism". John Carter (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Zzzzzzz.... Huh? TLDR, so what's the answer? Zad68 04:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

:) Great work John... really outstanding. Unfortunately all this really seems to do is muddy the water even a bit more. We now have:

• Although Judaism is considered to have origins from centuries before the Second Temple period, during that time it may be considered monolatristic instead of monotheistic. The more exclusively monotheistic perspective of Judaism is considered to have started around the Second Temple period, around 500 BCE. So which is the "start date" that we should be considering, the still-part-of-the-history-of-Judaism but apparently not-convincingly-monotheistic pre-Second Temple period, or the later Second Temple period?
• It appears that Zoroastrianism during its origins isn't considered strictly monotheistic, but over time the attitudes of its followers evolved in a direction towards monotheism. When did this happen? Like we had to ask for Judaism: Which phase of the religion should be considered the "start" for this comparison?
• When actually was the time period of Zarathustra? Between 1700 and 1000 BCE? Some other sources date him even later. What was the status of Judaism during that time period?

So what do we do with the article? There are a couple of options:

1. Do nothing, leave "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and the oldest to survive into the present day." as-is.
   • Argument for: We have a reasonably reliable source that says this explicitly, and all this analsysis is WP:OR and shouldn't be used anyway.
   • Argument against: The reliable source we do have is probably a tertiary source and is oversimplifying it. There's clearly disagreement about this topic in reliable sources and the reader would be better served by providing the wider range of academic opinions that exist.
2. Mention Zoroastrianism along with it, like: "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and (along with Zoroastrianism) is one of the oldest to survive into the present day."
   • For: Acknowledges the academic debate
   • Against: May open up distracting questions in the reader's mind, "Zoroastrianism? So which is it? Why doesn't the article tell me?"
3. Put a qualifier in like, "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and is arguably the oldest to survive into the present day." I would also put in a footnote on "arguably" with a sentence or two of explanation regarding the overlapping ranges of uncertainty of the start dates of the two religions, and also the subjectiveness of the application of the characterization of "monotheistic" by the sources.
   • For: Mentions the argument without introducing the distracting detail of mentioning Zoroastrianism. Leans the argument in the direction of Judaism as the oldest surviving monotheistic religion to about the same degree that reliable sources argue that Zoroastrianism isn't strictly "monotheistic." The interested reader can read the footnote. Conforms with WP:ASTONISH because I think most people probably think Judaism is the oldest. (This is my preference.)
   • Against: Clumsiest to implement
4. Get rid of the problem by removing the claim altogether, "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions."
   • For: Simplest, avoids all WP:OR issues, eliminates the the whole mess.
   • Against: The discussion exists in reliable sources and should be documented; if we don't put anything at all in there, some other editor will put it back.

Thoughts? Zad68 04:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Personally I am for keeping it, as sourced and correct in essence. If anything, just add the word "arguably". Debresser (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I also think we should add the word "arguably". Pass a Method talk 14:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• The question seems to be about the definition of "monotheism," which seems to have no clear and universally accepted definition. I would have some problems giving a specific definition of a term which apparently doesn't have one clearly obvious definition people agree on. That being the case, maybe something along the lines "Of the major world religions, Judaism is considered one of the oldest monotheistic religions." That would allow us to deal with the Australian Aboriginal religions, African religion, and Tierra del Fuego group, none of which are generally counted as "major world religions," so far as I can tell. I would remove the section about "surviving to this day." First, that is kinda obvious, and, also, there could be and I think has been a reasonable argument that Judaism has not continued substantially unchanged since the loss of the Temple. That loss changed quite a few things. Also, honestly, I rather doubt anyone who could actually read the article would not know that Judaism still exists, so that statement might be kind of redundant. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support John Carters proposal too. Pass a Method talk 16:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

John Carter's "Of the major world religions, Judaism is considered one of the oldest monotheistic religions." is the most acceptable to me, although I would add that, with the qualifier "Of the major world religions," the "one of" is not necessary. Thus, "Of the major world religions, Judaism is considered the oldest monotheistic religion." (removal of "one of" and the made the final word, "religions", singular rather than plural). — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the inclusion of the "one of" phrase is basically that Zoroastrianism, although it is admittedly a very small group today, is generally counted as a major world religion due to its long history, significant impact to world religion as a whole, due to it basically introducing linear time into religion, and at least in the past comparatively large numbers. And, as it is arguable whether it or Judaism came first, it could be that Zoroastrianism is the older of the two faiths, both of which are counted as major world religions. Having said that, saying something along the lines of "Judaism is the oldest of the fully monotheistic religions", that being more or less the terminology used in the EoR, might be acceptable. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

the early israelites were polytheists, and monotheism came much later. The esrly israelites were not Jews. The article should reflect this.90.211.19.178 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC) banned sock

The ancient Israelites were probably henotheistic in their worldview, but I reckon this article is chiefly about modern rabbinic Judaism than any other expression of this ethnic religion. |P.S. Gmar chatima tova. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There are several problems with the claim. Lets start with weasling to give undue weight. The only reason to mention the blatantly obvious that it's still being practiced today is to provide a reason to say it's the oldest. The next problem you have is verifiability and reliable source. The article is not credited to an author. So it by Anonymous. The next problem is the Publisher. While PBS is a respected broadcaster, I seriously doubt they do any fact checking beyond verifying funds available on a donation check. They are a well known pay for play and publication organization. So would they refuse publication of what is obviously promotional material to a very generous donor group? So there is a perceivable conflict of interest. This is a questionable source at best.

MagusAmathion (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

I was right, PBS is not a fact checking publisher. They have editorial standards and policies that producers of content must adhere to. But PBS only reviews content for compliance based on audience feedback or complaint. So if no one complains nothing is checked or reviewed. From what I've read the article cited does not comply with their editorial standards and policies. Read them for yourself. PBS Editorial Standards and Policies

So one way to resolve this is to see if PBS will stand behind the factual integrity of this anonymously authored work the cite is derived from. MagusAmathion (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

Judaism claims a historical continuity spanning more than 3,000 years. It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[9] and the oldest to survive into the present day.[10]

Why is this not original research? Both the links in the first sentence lead to Wikipedia pages which cannot be used as a reliable source. Also if this is a claim made by Judaism then it should be supported by Judaic sources, not Wikipedia. This forms a lead in to redundant sentence that makes an exceptional claim that would require multiple sources. That sentence would be most properly condenced to eliminate the redundancy and say, It is the oldest monotheistic religion to survive into the present day. But can the editor find the multiple sources supporting that exceptional claim?

What makes which of the monotheistic religion is the "oldest" an exceptional claim is that it is also a controversial claim. It is a matter of belief or opinion. So it cannot be stated in a matter of fact way like the grass is green. The volume of archived disputes of this should give an indication, if not serve as proof, that the claim is not generally accepted like the grass is green. I will admit that I have only searched 1 of the archives and found numerous debates on this. But if I search them all, will I find the proverbial ton of bricks? I think this needs to be more neutral to avoid undue weighting and end the enless debate. The claim of being the oldest is so exceptional and controversial. To retain the claim in a credible manner would demand a section explaining the methodology by which that conclusion is reached. Without that section the claim strain credibility. MagusAmathion (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

The BBC (source 9) and PBS (source 10) have been accepted as reliable sources for as long as Wikipedia has been active. Actually read the sentence. It says "one of the oldest," not simply "oldest." That part is fine. As for "oldest to survive to the present day," you need to actually cite a source saying Zoroastrianism is older, and then we have to bring in sources saying Judaism is older, and we see what the academic consensus is before deciding purely based on prior reading habits (because everyone tends to choose books that will say what we already accept). There is no original research in the article: it simply summarizes what those two sources say. Original research would consist of saying "everything I've read says Zoroastrianism is older" without citing a source, then engaging in a confirmation bias by arguing that otherwise reliable sources are unreliable simply because a complete misreading of them is outside one's prior understanding, then concluding that Zoroastrianism must be older. I appreciate your concern for this article, but you're going about it the wrong way. You're trying to prove a point, which is not how things are done on Wikipedia. You're not presenting sources, which is what editors do. While removing sources that have obvious problems is appropriate, attempting to find problems where there are none is not how things are done on Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian, Just because you do not find the statement to be a problem that does not mean it is not a problem. The archives clearly show that I am not the only one that has a problem with that exceptional and controversial claim. It is not upon me to show that Zoroastrianism is older. I would have problems with that too for many of the same reasons. The burden is upon the restoring editor to show that Judaism is the oldest with multiple reliable sources. Now about the single source cited. Who is the Author? Also I have posted PBS's policy that shows that they are not a fact checking publisher. At least they do no fact checking before publication. Also this discussion and the archives show that there are multiple POV's on which is the oldest. These multiple views are not represented in the article. So this goes against the core principle of Neutrality.

To me the first two sentences advances a position that are not properly sourced. The first two links use Wikipedia articles as a tertiary source which is not permitted. The oldest claim is only stated in the last link. There is nothing supporting the statement in the Source aka the work it's self. It is an unsupported statement. The burden is upon the restoring editor to show the reliability of the source being challenged.

MagusAmathion (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

If you really believe that PBS is not a reliable source, you may take your concern to WP:RSN, as large portions of this site will need to be redone if PBS truly is not reliable (and if that is indeed your concern, rather than simply arguing that to change the article, you should bring it up there). Otherwise, the source is fine, and the statement is sourced. Again, you've provided no counter sources.

Also, your claim that Wikipedia does not allow tertiary sources is absolutely incorrect, see WP:PSTS. You do not know the reliable sourcing guidelines, and are only arguing against PBS to take down a point you personally disagree with, for contrary ideas you have yet to provide any sources for. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian, First of all at this point I'm going to have to say that I find your continous assertion that because I'm new I don't understand to be rude and unwelcoming. Now, Reliable Sources must be continuously reevaluated for reliability. A broken watch is a reliable source on time twice a day every day. But you can't use that to assume the broken watch is a reliable source on time 24 hours a day. PBS publishes a wide variety of subjects and has had some problem in some areas. Bill Moyers quit his PBS show because of political pressure from a CPB executive. You also cannot do the reverse. You cannot assume that because PBS has had some allegations of political bias calling their credibility and reliability into question that they are not a reliable source on all subjects. I have been over the WP policy pages with a fine tooth comb. I have found nothing that says PBS is exempt from reliable source verfication.

Also there have already been more than enough sources cited on Zoroastrianism being the oldest. There is an attempt to form a new concensus by Zad68. So why would I would want to present yet another source to be picked apart to avoid examining Debresser's Source? Sorry, I'm not taking the bait. I will continue to examine Debresser's source.

Now as you know a Source is three things. The author, the work it's self and the publisher. Also the burden of evidence is on Debresser as the restoring editor. So I'm asking Debresser the answer three questions about the reliability of the source.

1) Who is the author? 2) How can you be sure of the reliability, accuracy and academic quality of the work without knowing who the author is? 3) Do you have anything that shows that PBS or the Producer of this content is a fact checking publisher?

MagusAmathion (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

Magus, if you have a problem with the sources, please bring the matter to WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have started a thread about this at WP:RS/N. The consensus there at this point is that PBS is not a reliable source for this statement. MagusAmathion (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion