Talk:Judaism

First representative

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

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

Bronze/Iron age parking place

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

@Alaexis It's not, there is a chart in Mindell's book.

David P Mindell (2009). The Evolving World. Harvard University Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-674-04108-0.

The book is trying to make a point of evolving things. The writer is an ornithologist and his PhD is in genetic research. The book isn't even about religion or the study of theology. It's a tertiary source, arguably it should be removed and replaced with one or more of the sources he cites in his book for making the chart.

Miller, Patrick D. (2000). The Religion of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-664-22145-4.

This is the main in-line source currently cited. After reading Millers book, it becomes apparent that he isn't using the term yahwism the way it is implied. He 's describing the worship of yahweh with no real focus on Judaism itself. Went back to count to make sure, outside of citations, he uses the word Judaism 4 times throughout the entire book, to put in perspective, he uses the term Christianity 4 times as well. The terms that would equate to Judaism in monotheistic worship would be Orthodox yahwism.

based on his acknowledgement,

At the heart of this analysis is a recognition especially of three fundamental types of Israelite religion: family religion, local cults, and official state religion. The reader familiar with Rainer Albertz’s comprehensive two-volume study of the history of Israel’s religion will not be surprised to encounter such a reconstruction of the religion of Israel. I am much indebted to Albertz, but in this regard more to his earlier monograph on official and popular religion than to his history, which had not appeared when the basic draft of chapter 2 was first written.

I would make the argument, that yahwism doesn't need to be in the article lead for an ethno religion when Yahwism is a scholar term that means multiple things depending on if it's pre-prophetic, post-prophetic, pre-maccabee, or post exile.

The dates of emergence and claim of yahwism being called a semitic religion are also not found in those source.

The final in-line source listed, literally uses Miller and Albertz as the source of information. The final source is quoting information that would be derived from John Seters work, specifically Deuteronomy , his argument is that Deuteronomy was the first book of the Torah to be written which places Judaism start around 620BCE.

Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). Biblical History and Israel's Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History

It's important to have in the infobox from a theological standpoint, but it distracts from Judaism being an ethnic religion. It was added to the lead most recently in 2021, based on the history, without citing an inline source, it was just piecing together what was already in the article and attaching Miller, Patrick as the reused source, possibly because he makes use of the word yahwism throughout his book but none of the original line information matches that source.

Yahwism was placed in Judaism article as filled:

Appeared In the infobox;

22:56, 17 November 2021

Appeared in lead;

02:34, 2 December 2021‎

‎

I have no idea if that was helpful, but the current in-line sources do not directly support the current statement. Although, they are pretty interesting books. RCSCott91 (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for a detailed response. I've removed this sentence, I think that it misleads the reader more than it informs them. If you can come up with an alternative that would be great. Alaexis_¿question? 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Changes

@Khassanu, we generally discuss content issues here, not on users' personal talk pages. Remsense ‥ 论 06:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section feels weird... it's about internal debates not criticisms... maybe it needs a title change or to be removed. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)