Talk:Jews as the chosen people/Archive 1

Charges of Racism
"Many books and websites promote the idea that Judaism is inherently racist. Hundreds of websites exist run by neo-Nazis, White supremacy advocates, Christian Identity adherents, and radical Islamist groups"

What the fuck is this? How can this section of the article start out with this line? This is a legitimate concern amongst non-Jews, misguided as some may consider it, and what this paragraph does is to accuse them of racism in return. Get rid of this =/

I agree. I've never been involved in anything even remotely related to white supremacy or any sort of anti-semitism. Yet I still hold the opinion that declaring a group of people the "chosen race" is in fact racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.153.11 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot-

What's not clear to me is, just what are they chosen to do? Is it simply to maintain a covenant with god, if so, where can one view this covenant in it's entirety. Because one could easily argue that Israel has an continues to this day to be an epicenter of global conflict. So the question foe me is, just what were they chosen for and to do what? Judging by their actions....

From the Torah
"The classical Jewish view of election, also called chosenness, comes from the Torah (five books of Moses). The Torah states that God entered into a special covenant with the Israelites; the description of this covenant is the Torah itself."


 * The misconception in the begining of this article may be invisible, and must be corrected.
 * 'The classical Jewish view of election, also called chosenness, comes from the Torah (five books of Moses)',
 * but The Covenant is not the cause for chosenness, as it may be seen from the article. The chosenness merely is the determinant for The Covenant.
 * To explain the chosenness, election, the author should refer to the chosenness, and election of the ancestral cause of jewish people.

There is NO one word "JEW" being mentioned in the five books, and Israelites were the blood descendants of man named Jacob (DNA issue), plus goyim Jews not in any covenant.

89.211.154.91 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Election"
One problem with the excerpted query/comment is that it imports Christian language into Jewish theology. I am maybe wrong, and if so I am sure Danny or RK will correct me, but I do not think "election" is appropriate in this context. My understanding of Christian, especially Calvinist theology (and again, if I am wrong someone please tell me) is that "elect" has a specific meaning, I thought it meant one would go to heaven. But the fact that Jews are "chosen" doesn't imply any necessary collective guarantee about the afterlife, and certainly doesn't exclude non-"chosen" people from any particular fate in the world to come. Slrubenstein


 * Slr, I agree with the above; I also like the recent edits and additions you made to the article. RK

Zohar
I have a beef. The entry on choseness states "This view of Jews as superior to non-Jews later resurfaced in a part of the Zohar, the classic book of Kabbalah (Jewish esoteric mysticism), and this view has been repeated in a few later Hasidic texts such as the Tanya. " But the entry on Zohar says nothing about these contraversial sections.


 * The text does not say that the Zohar comments on the Tanya (The Tanya was written centuries later than the Zohar.) Rather, it says that a certain idea in the Zohar (an early work) is repeated in the Tanya (a later work). Or do I misunderstand your question? RK 16:48, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You're not even addressing my question. The wiki on chosen people says the "view of Jews as superior to non-Jews later resurfaced in a part of the Zohar".  The wiki on the Zohar says nothing about this and quoting the portion of the choseness wiki will get anyone into hot water in a debate without any facts to back it up.  In a recent debate, I quoted the Chosen People wiki regarding the most contraversial issue surrounding Zohar, and when challenged, I looked for corroboration in the Zohar wiki but there is none.  That makes these two wikis less than useful as a resource.


 * Understood. All entries on Wikipedia, including Zohar, are incomplete works in progress. Info on this topic will be added very soon. RK 21:30, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Choosing or chosen
I second the beef. Further, in Judaism there is a concept of being the chosen people, but not a people that was chosen! Rather, the people who chose to accept the Torah. It's been an unfortunate snowball in history that this teaching is more or less unknown to non-Torah scholars. Most serious students of Torah (i.e. Yeshiva students, female Midrasha students, etc.) will be able to attest to the meaning of "Chosen People". For over 2000 years (before the Zohar was written), Judaism has defined it according to a Midrash that teaches that the Jews chose G-d. Submitted by Ezra Shapiro - bobby_shap@yahoo.com

As a modern Jew, I - also - prefer the phrasing that it was the Jewish people who chose to follow G-d. One purpose of the rite of passage (bar or batz mitzvah) is to reconfirm to follow that path. - Sparky 03:11, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That is one belief held by many religious Jews. Others hold that it is more accurate to say that God chose the Jews for this mission. Evidence for both points of view can be found in the Talmud and the midrash compilations. Since the Talmud, and the midrashim, represent the points of view of many different people, in many different times and places, it is not surprising that one finds a diversity of ideas. I have no objection to the idea you mention becoming a part of this article. RK 17:54, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * For the record, the term "Jews" here is misused, as the Torah long predates the split between Israel and Judaea. It is the Israelites who were chosen, and Jews (or Judaeans) are really only one subset of this. Just saying this as a Jew who cringes when people play too loosely with the terms. -J21

"Choosing" people ignores the fact their was no choice on Israel's part. They answered Naaseh v'nishmah, but there was a mountain being held over their heads at the time. Also it says in the Midrash Rabbah that they at that very point had in mind to create the golden calf. They were chosen because of the merit of the patriarchs. The choice had nothing to do with their own objective worth, but rather the worth of the Patriarchs descendants in the eyes of the Choser. 212.179.209.103 10:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Chosenness in Jewish Theology and Conceptions Within Jewish Communities
I'm hoping to paste in another source soon very critical of the views Maimonides held on non-Jews (many of you may already have heard of such an essay). However, I'd like to mention here as a European that if the treatment of converts to Judaism is to be deemed as any indicator of the interpretation of Jews themselves of the choseness or any superiority doctrine, then I must stress that in Finland and the Nordic countries the way in which you present the article doesn't connect with reality. i'll admit that the article and its toning down of the superiority interpretation of being chosen sounds realistic for areas like North America, Britain, South Africa and Australia, but I do not think it is as true for much of Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. Here I am stressing empirical reality in society, not simply the theoretical intrepretations of the doctrine. In fact there is a Yahoo Group associated with abused converts (or persons converting to Judaism if I recall) who would appear to feel that their abuse is somehow related to the behavioural and policy-related consequences of a superiority complex in the Nordic Jewish communities (Orthodox/Conservative) at least. The group is "A Jewish Conversion Victims Anonymous". My point is that the theoretical discussion here means less if one can point to members of the Jewish Community behaving toward non-Jews or converts (ex non-Jews) as if the "supreme race" intrepretation were the correct one in their eyes.

GKN

- - - >

The article brings to the front another claim made very often by some denominations of Judaism which is historically inaccurate and miseading as well to students of Judaism. Again, if we are speaking theology per se then it might be futile to argue the point. However on the meta level regarding historical accuracy, the following should be noted:

Zoroaster was the first to separate good from evil. Judaism likely imported many central ideas from this religion which it by all means would have had access to during its early years and subsequently. That aside, speaking from a simple world religious history perspective Judaism was NOT the first monotheistic religion nor was it the first religion to clarify the concepts of good and evil, purity and impurity. As such many could dispute the "chosen" doctrine if it is based upon such tenets, i.e. this aspect of the uniqueness of Judaism is called into question by historical facts.

GKN

Quote from the article: Orthodox views Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, former Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue of Great Britain (Modern Orthodox Judaism), describes chosenness in this way: "Yes, I do believe that the chosen people concept as affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its millennial tradition. …The Jews were chosen by God to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers of religion and morality; that was and is their national purpose."

first sentence
"Chosenness is the belief that the Jewish people are the chosen people"...

Is it more accurate to say "Chosenness is the belief held by Jews that they are the chosen people?" Kingturtle 20:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Some non-Jews also believe that Jews are chosen by God for a mission. In fact, traditionally most Christians have always held this belief; they just believe that this chosenness was later transferred to them. RK

Moved from article
" Starting in early medieval Europe, during a time of intense persecution of Jews, some Jews began teaching that the meaning of chosenness implied that God loves Jews more than other human beings, and that Jews were inherently superior to non-Jews.

Over time such views became popular among a segment of the Jewish community; however, such views were rejected by the majority of the Jewish community, and by all mainstream rabbinic organizations.

The Encyclopedia Judaica states that "It would seem that the more extreme, and exclusive, interpretations of the doctrine of election, among Jewish thinkers, were partly the result of reaction to oppression by the non-Jewish world. The more the Jew was forced to close in on himself, to withdraw into the imposed confines of the ghetto, the more he tended to emphasize Israel's difference from the cruel gentile without. Only thus did his suffering become intelligible and bearable. This type of interpretation reaches its height in the Kabbalistic idea that while the souls of Israel stem ultimately from God, the souls of the gentiles are merely of base material (kelippot, "shells"). When the Jew was eventually allowed to find his place in a gentile world, the less exclusivist aspect of the doctrine reasserted itself." "

The first two paragraphs are clearly biased assumptions, and the last paragraph an unnecessarilly long quotation from a biased source, with no counter balanceing information. Sam Spade 20:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * They are not "biased assumptions". They are historical facts well attested to throughout many Jewish studies and historical sources. RK 17:54, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are also a biased assumption ;) Sam Spade 20:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No doubt! ;-)  But if you have specific objections to parts of the text, they are of course open to discussion. My main concern is that I don't want to whitewash away views that many would consider important, yet I don't want to give the impression that certain views are common, when they are not. Some suggested readingon the topic would be recent articles by Allan Nadler, Director of the Jewish Studies Program at Drew University and YIVO,

Race and chosenness
I am just asking, should the following subjects be in the chosen people article? I thought that the original idea of this article was about religious views of God choosing a people for some purpose. The three ideas mentioned below are fairly modern and non-religious. There is, of course, overlap between all these ideas. RK 17:56, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * The master race concept of Nazi Germany
 * White supremacy
 * Black supremacy

NPOV
Jews_as_a_chosen_people is very much a biased overview, painting all accusations as anti-Semitic, and ignoring completely the facts (albeit again presented in a biased manner) in Jews_as_a_chosen_people. The article needs some repairs, but I'm not an expert on the intricacies, so I'm mainly just sounding the alarm. Sam [Spade] 04:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your complaint. How can you claim that there is bias, when you then admit that there already exists a detailed section on Jewish people who viewed choseness as superiority. I could understand your claim if no such section existed, but such a section does exist. You keep saying that this is "biased", but you don't say how. Do you really want this article to present the minority viewpoint of a small number of Jews as if it was the majority viewpoint? That would be intellectually dishonest. I know of no sources which hold that most Jews hold such views, except sources from hate groups. We have an obligation to present the beliefs of people within their historical context, and to give a clear idea of what amount of people within a group hold such ideas.  The ideas that Jews are genetically superior to other humans is, to be honest, not taught by any significant number of Jews. It is, as the article states, a very minority point of view. It would simply be false to portrary Jews in general as having such views, since they don't have these views!  You seem upset that most Jews, in all Jewish denominations, speak out against racist interpretations of Jewish texts. Why? RK 19:28, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not "upset that most Jews ... speak out against racist interpretations of Jewish texts". I am saying that the Jews_as_a_chosen_people section portrays all critics as antisemites, and ignores the information provided just above. The Jews_as_a_chosen_people section is also biased in what it doesn't say, and how non-jewish views are excluded. In summary, the article paints all non-jewish critics of the "chosen people" concept within judaism as anti-semites, which is POV, and frankly wrong. Sam [Spade] 07:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see what you mean. I was trying to focus on one issue only: Criticisms based on false presentations of Jewish views of choseness. But there are people who have an accurate view of Jewish views of chosenness, and criticise it, without being racist. I know that Mordecai Kaplan is one good example. We can look for others. RK 14:21, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds like were on the same page then. I wish I could help you more, but this is the kind of article I read to learn from, rather than an area of which I am able personally make substantial contributions to. I'm glad to see my interest in having alternate POV's presented is one which you share, and appreciate your work here. The article overall is quite good actually, my criticisms were necessarily specific due to the overall quality of writing and number of citations here. Sam [Spade] 20:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have just added some new material on criticisms of the Jewish view of choseness, and what I think is an interesting case-in-point, the famous (or infamous) "Aleinu" prayer. The original version was accused of being written as anti-Christian polemic. I've read some non-religious scholarship on the history of the liturgy, which concludes that the original idea actually was an anti-idolatry polemic. However, the infamous line was removed...leading to a whole new set of interpretations of the prayer! This prayer is poety, rather than a clearly written discussion, so I can certainly see how it can be used to assert the superiority of Jews over all other peoples, even if that was not the historical intent. Non-Orthodox Jews have become sensitive to this, as many non-Orthodox Jews have intermarried, and their non-Jewish relatives oten worship with them in the synagogue. Every post-1950s prayerbook from non-Orthodox Jewish movements has translated and commented on this prayer in order to try and make clear that it is not meant to assert supeiority, and is not an anti-Christian polemic. RK 20:55, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * If criticisms based on false presentations of views of chosenness belong here, then so do criticisms based on an accurate view of chosenenss. Note that the entire issue of the status of Gentiles in halakhah goes beyond the question of chosenness; perhaps a separate article on the subject should be written? As the present article stands - it is, as far as I can tell, largely accurate, but it is somewhat marred by an apologetic tone. The sad fact is that some Talmud quotations used by anti-semites are not just correctly translated and interpreted, but are, in fact, current halakhah, and fairly basic to an understanding of status issues. Oppression in Europe and Christian anti-Judaism led to an emphasis on already existing trends. Hasdrubal 21:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree that this particular section is very poor, and reads more like a polemical defensive response to accusations rather than a section of facts and discussion. Examination of "chosennes" in the context of racism is important, and should not simply be dismissed as a fabrication of lying fascists! Fig (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Prayers and blessings: Danny's analysis
Sorry, but the translations of the prayers are misquotes. The article says: The blessing for reading the Torah reads "Praised are you, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has chosen us out of all the nations to bestow upon us his Torah." Actually, the blessing says, who has chosen us out of all the nations and to bestow[ed] upon us his Torah. It is two separate clauses, not one defining the other (&#1489;&#1495;&#1512; &#1489;&#1504;&#1493; &#1502;&#1499;&#1500; &#1492;&#1506;&#1502;&#1497;&#1501; &#1493;&#1504;&#1514;&#1503; &#1500;&#1504;&#1493;). According to the prayer as recited by Conservative and many Reform congregations, chosenness and the receiving of the Torah are two distinct aspects of Jewish identity, not one defining the other. It is basic Hebrew. Furthermore, Aleinu is also mistranslated. the excised verse aside, the prayer says &#1513;&#1500;&#1488; &#1506;&#1513;&#1504;&#1493; &#1499;&#1490;&#1493;&#1497;&#1497; &#1492;&#1488;&#1512;&#1510;&#1493;&#1514; &#1493;&#1500;&#1488; &#1513;&#1502;&#1504;&#1493; &#1499;&#1502;&#1513;&#1508;&#1495;&#1493;&#1514; &#1492;&#1488;&#1491;&#1502;&#1492;, "Who did not make us like the nations of the earth, and did not place us like the families of the land. Apologetics and poor translations aside, to the best of my knowledge, both Conservative and most Reform congregations keep this line, even if they and most Orthodox congregations have excised the verse "who bow down to nothingness and vanity, and pray to an impotent god." Let's be accurate. The verses are questionable, at best. Danny 01:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Danny, this verse from the Aleinu that you mention isn't an original Jewish prayer. It is a quote from the Bible, Isaiah 45:20. "Come, gather together, Draw nigh, you remnants of the nations! No foreknowledge had they who carry their wooden images andpray to a God who cannot give success." (New JPS) The book of Isaiah was wrtting long before Christianity existed; therefore it cannot possibly refer to Christians or similar religions. Further, if I recall correctly, Ismar Elbogen, one of the greatest historians of the liturgy, held that the early form of the Aleini prayer pre-dated Christianity. Therefore, as the Reform and Conservative scholars say, this prayer must be about rejecting the forms of idolatry mentioned in the Bible, and not about other faiths. This isn't a disingenuous apologetic; this is solid scholarship. RK


 * I am a bit uncertain as to what your first point is. Are you implying that Reform and Conservative Judaism are using this prayer to subtly push a belief of superiority? If so, why? They have made many clear statements on this prayer in their official prayerbooks and educational materials. And note that these teachings were made for in-house use, not for advertisements. Unless you have sources to offer to the contrary, why can't we believe what they say about their own beliefs? RK 14:35, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * In regards to the translation of the blessing before reading the Torah, you say that "the blessing says, who has chosen us out of all the nations and to bestow[ed] upon us his Torah. It is two separate clauses, not one defining the other." Well, that may be true given a literal word-for-word translation, but we can't always translate this way. I have seen three different prayer books not use the word "and". The scholars of Jewish Publication Society, who translated the entire Tanakh, warned against the reflexive translation of "vav" as "and". In both the Hebrew Bible and the Siddur, the word used for "and" can mean meany different things, depending on the context. It is not "basic Hebrew"; it is advanced Hebrew grammar, in which one most note both grammatical constructions and the context. This is not an "apologetic"; the JPS translators bring up this issue in general for the translation of all verses in the Bible, not this prayer. So, yes, you can translate the prayer in the way that you do (and this is done in the Artscroll Siddur), but you can translate it other ways as well. In any case, I think you are missing the point of the article. As a historian, you know that you cannot take one sentence by itself, and work backwards to construct what someone must believe. Rather, you must read a people's entire literature in its historical context to construct an analysis of their beliefs.


 * You write that "According to the prayer as recited by Conservative and many Reform congregations, chosenness and the receiving of the Torah are two distinct aspects of Jewish identity, not one defining the other." This is incorrect; the prayerbooks of the Conservative and Reform movements do not translate this sentence in the way that you do. They do not have "and". For instance, "Siddur Sim Shalom for Shabbat and Festivals" (Conservative Judaism) translates this as "Praised are you Adonai our God, who rules the universe, choosing us from among all people by giving us the Torah." This relationship is made even more explicit in the commentary to the prayer, and in a number of publications by the Conservative moevement. The same is true for modern Reform and Reconstructionist prayerbooks. However, I do not have the text of Phillip Birnbaum classic siddur here, which would be interesting to look at. That is a classic work that used to be used by most Orthodox and even many Conservative congregations. RK 15:07, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Artscroll Siddur, perhaps the most popular Orthodox Jewish prayerbook, does translate this as you do, with "and". Their commentary to this prayer is instructive as to their worldview: They do not view it as a polemic against idolatry or against Christianity. Rather, they view it as a guard against assimilation! In hindsight, this is not surprising, since Mesorah Publications sees that as their own primary reason for existence. The commentary of the Artscroll siddur states:
 * Bach (Orach Chaim 133) explains that Aleinu was added to the daily prayers to implant faith in the Oneness of God's kingship, and the conviction that we will one day remove detestable idolaty from the Earth..., thus preventing Jews from being tempted to follow the beliefs and lifestyles of the nations among whom they dwell. (p.158)


 * The major point is that Jews have never believed or written that "God chose us", period. Its just not true. Rather, in the mishnah, tosefta, midrash, and the Talmuds, the rabbis always taught that "God chose us to do X" or "God chose us because of Y", and some specific reasons were always given. Examples are given within this article. The repeated theme throughout classical rabbinic literature is that God did not claim to love the Jews alone, nor claim that Jews alone will be "saved", nor claim that non-Jews would be damned, nor claim that God is only God of the Jews. Rabbinic literature is full of statements saying that God is the God of all peoples, and that even Jews ("a people chosen for purpise X, Y, or Z") are not always in God's favor.

Ah, once again, RK's ignorance of basic Jewish and Hebrew showing. Regarding your first point, I nowhere mentioned Christianity. I stated what the prayer said. Nothing more. Nothing less. I did not get into a discussion of who first said it when. I did not mention Christianity. Your entire point is irrelevant. Danny


 * Danny, the people who translated the prayers mentioned above and in the main article are not ignorant of basic Jewish thought and the Hebrew langauge. They are Conservative and Reform rabbis and scholars, some of whom have Orthodox backgrounds and training. In fact, much of the commentary in the article comes from Orthodox sources. I know that you had fifteen years of experience in translating Hebrew. It should give you intellectual modesty; not all people translate the same way. Don't assume that these differences are due to ignorance. RK


 * RK, I am not arguing the article (though I think it is a lot of apologetic bullshit). I am correcting your translation of two sentences. You gave an interpretation, not a literal translation. Unfortunately, you do not know enough to understand that. Worse than my lack of intellectual modesty is your intellectual arrogance coupled with dire ignorance. Danny 02:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for the Hebrew vav, it is used in two ways in ancient Hebrew: in the sense of and and as a tense-marker (vav-ha'hipukh). You say that we cannot always translate that way. In other words, you feel uncomfortable with the literal meaning of the words (as do I) and choose to reinterpret them. That is certainly legitimate. It is not, however, what the words mean. If you knew Hebrew (and it is quite obvious that you do not), for the second part to be dependent on the first would require an infitive form of the verb to give. In fact, it says natan which is the third-person past tense of the verb. Natan literally means he gave. Nowhere does it mean anything else. Ve-natan means And he gave (theoretically, it could also mean he will give if the stress shifts to the penultimate, but I am not going to go there, since that is irrelevant, based on the context, i.e., the previous verb). The sentence is structured as two parallel phrases: bachar banu and natan lanu--a typical poetic technique in Hebrew. JPS can translate it as they wish. That does not mean the translation is accurate. It means the translation is a reflection of their contemporary worldview being imposed on the text. That is legitimate too. It is not, however, the literal meaning of the text. Perhaps they feel confident enough that most people will not understand the Hebrew. Finally, I am not implying anything with this verse. I am simply stating what it says in a literal translation. You inserted an interprative translation which does not reflect the true meaning of the text.


 * I agree that these interpretations may not reflect the literal meaning of the original authors of this prayer. However, these are not my personal interpretations: rather, these are teachings from Jewish rabbis and groups. The point of the article is to show how Jews understand such sentences. Translation, shmanslation. In practice, Jews and Christians can read the same sentence in very different ways. So we need to ask "How do Jews understand this sentence? What teachings do Jews have that are based on this sentence? How was this subject taught by Jews in the past? How is this subject taught by Jews today?"
 * Indeed, this difference between the a literal translation, and the teachings of various Jewish groups, is why why some modern-day translators feel the need to translate this sentence differently than you do. Others translate it as you do, but add detailed explanations of what they mean by this prayer. They clearly feel that a literal translation misses the point of what, in their view, Jewish theology teaches on this point. RK


 * Fine, then it is not a translation but an interpretation. Explain that. The sentences you quote are troublesome. Those rabbis you quote from authority (which is little more than a rhetorical ploy), recognized that and decided to reinterpret the verse. Ask any of them what the sentence literally means. Ask Gillman, for all I care. He will tell you. They recognized the problem and came up with a creative translation/interpretation. That is legitimate. It is not, however, what the verse states. Danny 02:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Huh? Since when is using scholars and authorities a "ploy"? The problem with most Wikipedia articles is that people push their own points of view as fact. In contrast, I am including translations, quotes and analyses from a variety of sources, instead of giving my own translation and interpretation. What is wrong about offering a wide array of points of view, from the Tanakh to the Kuzari to Mordecai Kaplan? RK


 * Danny says that "As for the Hebrew vav, it is used in two ways in ancient Hebrew: in the sense of and and as a tense-marker (vav-ha'hipukh). You say that we cannot always translate that way."
 * All I know is that the Orthodox, Reform and Conservative biblical scholar from the JPS Tanakh translation committee hold this view, and their translation has wide acclaim. And it is not just two ways that the Hebrew letter vav can be translated; they offer half-a-dozen possibilities, depending on the context. RK


 * Causality is interpretive. You are arguing from authority, not from knowledge. I do not respond to meaningless rhetoric. Perhaps if you knew Hebrew grammar ... Danny 02:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I am not offering any of my own original arguments. Rather, I am presenting various Jewish points of view. Apparently, you agree with all the different Jewish points of view in this article? I can't help you on that one. Wikipedia has a no-personal-research policy. We can't include your personal point of view. We can, however, discuss the array of views within the Jewish community, and compare and contrast them. RK 02:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

To end off, I will add a story. Several years ago, I asked one of the most prominent Reform rabbis in Jerusalem why he says Aleinu in his congregation, even if they have altered most of the Al ken nekaveh part at the end (and even added a prayer for peace in Arabic). His answer was simple: everyone knows it, so they sing it together. On the other hand, he admitted the problematics of the prayer and said, quite frankly, that he had even proposed before a board of rabbis that it be removed from their prayer book. Two words of advice: 1) don't insert interpretation as fact; 2) learn Hebrew before commenting on it. Danny 22:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) (who happens to have worked for more than fifteen years translating biblical, mishnaic, medieval, and modern Hebrew)


 * (A) I agree with you that we should not mistake literal translations for later understandings and teaching. But this article is not about this sentence; rather, it is about what Jews believe about the concept of chosenness. The article presents multiple examples of ancient and modern Jewish understandings of this concept. And I would also agree that we must distinguish facts fom opinions. For instance, tt is a fact that these people and groups teach X, Y and Z. But whether or not they should have these beliefs, of course, is a matter of opinion. (B) The people commenting on this verse do know Hebrew; they are ordained rabbis, some of whom live in Israel and speak hebrew on a daily basis. (C) Your story about the Reform rabbi illustrates one of my points. I don't see how we disagree. No matter what a literal translation of a prayer might say, that isn't necessarilly what Jews believe. Similarly, Jews don't believe that God has beautiful, long locks of golden hair, even if "Ani'im Zemirot" (The Hymm of Glory) says so! RK 00:54, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

A) Then you agree, it is interpretive, not literal. Good. All of your points above are meaningless then. B) I am not contesting the article. I contest it, but I am not raising those issues here. I am contesting the translation of two very simple Hebrew verses. C) Your point about An'im zemirot is non sequitor and therefore not worth comment. I am sorry you have no ability to distinguish between metaphor and statement. I also contend that there are multiple interpretations of Jewish sources, not just the ones you like. You see, I happen to think that Jewish tradition is a lot richer than your narrow, dogmatic, singular interpretation. Shivim panim la-Torah. I'm sorry you don't know enough to realize that. Danny 02:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for your edit summary: ''The major point is that Jews have never believed or written that "God chose us", period. Its just not true''. That is just pure bullshit. Asher bachar banu in birkot haTorah, or try kiddush every Friday night: Ki banu bacharta ve'otanu kidashta mikol ha'amim. On holidays the prayer is Ata bachartanu mikol ha'amim, ahavta otanu, ratzita banu, veromamtanu mikol haleshonot. Then there is, Habocher be'amo yisrael be'ahava right before the Shema. I can go on and on. Danny 02:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You are arguing against a point I never made. You are getting hystrical, and need to calm down. Your claim about the liturgy are simply false quotes; in the Orthodox Jewish prayer books I have they do not exist as you present them. Rather, you have disingenuously snipped the quotes to present a misleading and distorted view of what the siddur says. No to mention the fact that your views do match any of the teachings of Modern Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative Judaism. You seem hell bent on trying to make all Jews look like racists. Please stop.

(A) Danny, this article is not about the literal translation of one sentence. Why do you persist in making this bizarre claim? Rather, this article is about Jewish views of chosenness. Jews have certain teachings about this concept, which do not match your literal and questionable translation of this on sentence. For some reason, the articles array of different viewpoints enrages you. Calm down. This is not "meaningless"; in fact, this is the entire point of the article.

(B) Your claim about a non-sequitor are incomprehensible. The Jewish prayer "Ani'im Zemitot" has a literal translation which portrays God as anthropomorphic, yet all of Jewish theology rejects this. Why? Because a literal translation of one sentence, by itself, does not define all of Jewish theology. That is the point! You can't take an 800 page book, literally translate one

(C) I know that you have a hatred of me, but that is no reason to make up bald-faced lies. Unlike you, my intellectual honesty compelled me to include multiple interpretations of this theological concept in the article. Anyone who reads the article can see your claims as false on its face. How is my offering nearly a dozen different points of view a "narrow, dogmatic, singular interpretation"? That's an insane statement. I have included points of view from the Hebrew Bible itself, from the Talmud, from the Kuzari, the Tanya, the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform movements, and from Mordecai Kaplan, Marcia Falk and Judith Plaskow. Please control yourself, and stop making up false accusations. The real problem is that you apparently believe that Jews teach racism, so you are enraged that the article shows universalist teaching which show otherwise. RK

I will ignore your ad hominem attacks. Open a siddur. Every quote exists exactly as I gave it. The fact that you are ignorant of this is no excuse to accuse me of lying. Danny 02:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No, they don't contain these quotes...you chopped the sentences in half. That's deceitful. For shame. RK 02:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Here we go:
 * 1) Ki banu bacharta ve'otanu kidashta mikol ha'amim ve shabbat kodshecha beahava uveratzon hinchaltanu. (You have chosen us and sanctified us from among all the nation and your holy Sabbath you have granted to us with love and desire. It continues, Blessed are you, God, who has sanctified the Sabbath. End of prayer.--said every Friday night)
 * 2) Ata bachartanu mikol ha'amim, ahavta otanu, ratzita banu, veromamtanu mikol haleshonot vekidashtanu bemitzvitecha vekeravtanu malkeinu lavodatecha. (You have chosen us from all nations, you have loved us, you have desired us, and you have exalted us from all tongue, and you have sanctified us with your commandments, and you have brought us close to you, Our King, to serve you. End of prayer--said every holiday service)
 * 3) Baruch ata Adonai habocher be'amo yisrael be'ahava (Blessed are you, God, who has  chosen his people Israel with love. End of prayer-said daily)

All translations are mine. They do contain those quotes, because if I chopped them in half, it implies they exist. In any event. I have given the full quotes here. You said in a previous edit summary that Jews have never claimed to be chosen. Here are three common prayers that disprove your statement. I am quite sorry if you never heard of them, but I can assure you they exist. Ask any of the Jewishly knowledgeable editors. Danny 02:53, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just a observation- all the quotes excluding the last clearly says that the Jews are chosen for a purpose. 1- Chosen to keep the sabath. 2- chosen to keep the commandments. 3- not sure where it comes from or what the rest is. This is in line with Jewish thinking like the article says - Jews are chosen to keep the commandments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.245.149 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * People who attack Jews for believing in the correctness of their religious tenets are just absurd. How many other ancient religions have texts that say "And if you worship other gods or subscribe to other religions, that's just hunky-dory"? I mean, get real. -J21

Truce
Hey, lets settle down a bit. Accusations of lying are out of place here. I honestly don't know enough about the particulars to weigh in strongly, but I will say that while Danny is an expert on these issues (unless we are calling his integrity completely into question, which I should hope is not the case) I have had occasion to disagree with him in the past (Amalek=dwellers in the valley or no?) regarding linguistics. Disagreeing is ok; heck it’s good even sometimes, if done politely. If need be we can provide conflicting references or citations of divergent interpretations of data. What we don't need to do is bicker. And, btw, every religious Jew I have ever met or heard of claimed to be "chosen", so I don't know what the argument is really about, but whatever. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Speaking of beating a dead horse; I understand that the argument is really about the purpose of the article (therefore about what should be included there) and not about some translation. Quoting RB: ["But this article is not about this sentence; rather, it is about what Jews believe about the concept of chosenness."] People's understanding and interpretation changes - but the literal text usually stays. That's why I think literal interpretation is not less important than theological one (not more important as well). In other words, if there was a passage in the Bible which says "world was created in 7 days" but 95% of religious Jews would interpret it as "world was created in 7 time sections", I would still want to know what the literal translation means. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 19:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) (a hebrew-knowing jew who agress with the popular/real interpretation of "chosen")

Missing Orthodox content
The Orthodox Jews are not solely modern orthodox. This discussion is sorely lacking in Charedi Yeshivish beliefs. Most Jews may have the biblical beliefs, like the Reformers, or like rabbi Norman Lamm, but many have a newer belief based on their reading of the Zohar and Cuzari. Many Charedi Yeshivish Jews do believe that Jews are superior to gentiles. Even though this is not a belief among most Jewish people, the Charedi Yeshivish population is large enough to warrant mentioning. See the new Charedi book "Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut," "The Superiority of Israel and the Question of Exile", which is based on American Charedi teachings, and is defended by the Charedi Yeshivish community.

Over the last few years the modern orthodox have been giving up their beliefs, and becoming more like the Charedi (Yeshivish) Jews. Perhaps the spread of Charedi ideology into modern orthodox Judaism was inevitable. In any case, the article is missing points of view like the one shown below. Apparently, some modern orthodox Jews believe that Jews have a different DNA than gentiles, and a different soul. The article mentions nothing of this.


 * "Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut," "The Superiority of Israel and the Question of Exile"


 * Second article on Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut


 * New Jersey Jewish News. Drew University scholar defends article exposing Lakewood rabbi’s ‘racialist’ text


 * Discussion of modern orthodox controversy

Been to New Jersey, and knowing what I am missing, and not missing it.


 * Actually, rather than being "defended by the Charedi Yeshivish community", it appears that the Haredi community is disavowing it. Jayjg 21:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think to reach NPOV this sentence should be edited from Instead of using such beliefs to persecute non-Jewish people, they use such beliefs to emphasise their view of their role in the world. to something like They use such beliefs to emphasise their view of their role in the world.. Who agrees? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 01:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Have they ever used their beliefs to persecute non-Jews? Jayjg 16:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know. My point is that in either case there's no purpose for that "instead" part - they either did or didn't. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I suppose the intended contrast was to various supremacist groups. Jayjg 19:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Which shows the POV of anti-supremacist, don't you think? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 19:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article in general is missing the concept of "choseness" as held by Heradim. Am Segulah means peple who are private property. Segulah is Private Property or a personal secret stash. Fuzz balls can be a segulah if the owner is very possessive of them. The idea is that Jews belong to G-d and don't get a choice about it, not that they are superior. This is from a verse straight from the Torah, "DO not think I chose you because you are the greatest of the goyim, rather you are the least of the goyim." The idea is that G-d freed them from Egypt and now owns them. ALso it doesn't mention the interesting view of the Ari Z'l on the chosen because of being the least of the goyim idea. That the Jews are the reincarnations of the people of Sodom and Gemorah, and because Abraham prayed on behalf of those people, he was given personal responsability for them. They became his descendants and inherited the TOrah that Abraham deserved to recieve, because if the Torah can succeed in transforming the people of Sodom and Gemorah into a Kingdom of Priests, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt it Author's greatness. 212.179.209.103 10:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-Orthodox Orthodoxy
It would be nice if people who don't know what they are talking about stop trying to present Orthodox viewpoints. These people are spouting the biases of secondary sources and probably have never seen the primary sources. Furthermore, they possess an extremely skewed understanding of historical background.

Also, when people hear "Rabbinic Judaism," they think of Orthodox Judaism. (Just because you have rabbis, it doesn't make you "Rabbinic." "Rabbinic Judaism"'s Connotation is Orthodox.

P.S. REUVEN HAMMER WAS ORDAINED AT J.T.S., A CONSERVATIVE SEMINARY. CONSERVATIVE RABBIS AREN'T KNOWN FOR THEIR ORTHODOX VIEWPOINTS. WHY IS SUCH A LARGE PART OF A SECTION ON CLASSIC RABBINIC PHILOSOPHY DEDICATED TO HAMMER'S IDEAS? 4.241.36.239


 * Not a comment on the content above so much as a statement about the use of primary sources on Wikipedia. The policy, Anonymous editor, stipulates that we cannot rely on any one editor's interpertations of primary sources. Such interpertations need to be grounded in the scholarship (i.e. 2ndry sources), otherwise, as correct as these interpertations may well be, they count as original research and are inadmissible here. El_C 23:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Tomer Talk 23:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add some substance to Tomer's style. Oh, El_C, writing a book doesn't make you a scholar or admissable 2ndry source. Having studied the topic material intensively for years does. 4.241.36.239


 * Heh, funny. Anyway, fair enough, but that strays from my point, Anonymous editor 1, that interpertations of primary sources need to be grounded in the scholarship. A policy which someone who studied the topic material intensively for years should have little difficulties with. p.s. You can sign your comments by typing ~ at the end of your comments. El_C 00:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Um. What you have done now is clearly vandalism. Where do you get off deleting other peoples' stuff on the talk page? Tomer TALK 01:43, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I missed that. 4.241.36.239, don't edit or delete other users comments. El_C 01:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Tomer. 4.241.36.239 Changed your comment back. 4.241.36.239

POV
''Many Charedi (Yeshivish, religiously right-wing) Jews hold a differing point of view. Based on teachings in the Tanya and Zohar, many hold that Jews are either physically or spiritually superior to non-Jews. Interestingly, this does not imply that they consider non-Jews as any less deserving of civil rights than themselves. Instead of using such beliefs to persecute non-Jews, they use such beliefs to emphasise their view of their role in the world.''

The words that I have bolded above clearly imply that one would expect that Charedi Jews would oppose civil rights for non-Jews (!) and persecute non-Jews (!!). Why is it intersting that Charedim don't oppose civil rights for non-Jews? Why is it necessary to mention the contrast "Instead of using such beliefs to persecute non-Jews?" HKT 22:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it means the opposite. Views of superiority usually do lead to persecution of people in other faiths. Therefore it is very remarkable to note that this is not true among Chareidim who have such a belief. Mark3

Who is Tanya? 20:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a book, the Tanya (technically "Likkutei Amarim"), not a person. Tomer TALK 20:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, none of those sources speak of "physical superiority", and I'm not aware of any element of Judaism that considers Jews physically superior. HKT 21:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Does any group have such a belief? Mark3

Apologetic and Simplistic article
How sad that when one reads this article there is no doubt that it was written by Jews. How sad that it completely obliterates and confuses the pretty simple idea of G-d choosing a nation to exemplify and personify the ideals in the Torah. All the apologetics concerning peripherals (i.e. can this idea be twisted and misconstrued) should perhaps be in a different article titled " Modernity and Chosenness", or " Chosenness and Political Correctness".


 * Yes, it is very obviously written by Jews, but I suppose it's a subject that Jews themselves are most likely to be knowledgeable about. The angle that ‘anyone who calls the chosenness idea racist is themself a racist/Nazi/radical, and also a liar/fabricator’, is - whether you agree with it or not - unquestionably and shamelessly POV. I suggest a ‘neutrality disputed’ tag. Palefire 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is thus written "How sad that it completely obliterates and confuses the pretty simple idea of G-d choosing a nation to exemplify and personify the ideals in the Torah" I am having a hard time understanding this criticism. This point of view is repeatedly stated within the article. The questioner seems not have read several paragraphs within this very article. Mark3 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about how Jews view the concept of choseness. I should hope its written by Jews. [TJ: Oct 2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.245.149 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brahmanism
Sounds like Jews as a chosen people is similar to Brahmanism in India. Known 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The Jews are not a caste. Asarelah 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK Brahmins are also the chosen people. Known 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says that Hinduism does not emphasize any concept of a chosen people. It just says that there are some features that are reminicent of the "chosen people" concept, but it does not draw direct paraells. Asarelah 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Charges of racism section
The "Charges of racism" section makes it sound like only crazy groups like neo-nazis and white supremacists would think that the chosen-people idea makes Jewish people racist. However, when a group claims that it is chosen by God, it sounds kind of racists at first against the non-chosen even to someone who is not anti-semitic. You should explain why being "chosen people" is not a racist claim without accusing the reader of being a nazi just because he is confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes of Googling proves that Charges of racism are not mostly "by neo-Nazis, White supremacy advocates, Christian Identity adherents, and radical Islamist groups". The vast majority of criticism is not fabrication or "quote mining" and is not based on arcane nonsense like "blood libel" as the ADL claims. It is based on the Jews claim of god-given rights to Palestinian land and Judaism's racist conversion practices and other plain truths. Fourtildas (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Find reliable sources (not from the lunatic fringe, in other words), and put them in. Asarelah (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:SOAP. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The claims about "neo-Nazis, White supremacy advocates, Christian Identity adherents, and radical Islamist groups" seem like soapboxing to me, I will put a citation needed tag on them. I was just stating that my brief session with Google didn't turn up much evidence of these but did turn up the other concerns I mentioned. Just because you don't agree with what Google searches turn up doesn't give you the right to make accusations or bully me, even if you are a bigshot in the Wikicracy. The onus is on the proponents to defend their content, not on me to disprove it. Fourtildas (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have also put a citation needed on "generally". Fourtildas (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you could add Atheists to the list if you looked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.138.232 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I find the statement that we're stuck with at the moment to be very unsatisfactory. It reads "Some people have claimed that Judaism's chosen people concept is racist because it implies that Jews are superior to non-Jews. However, the ADL and other authorities assert that the concept of chosen people within Judaism has nothing to do with racial superiority, but rather is a description of the special relationship between God and Jews." This is a non sequitur, since "a special relationship between God and Jews" is not incompatible with any racism implicit in that relationship. For example, any group can believe that it has "a special relationship between them and their god", but that very belief can spring from racism, or can provide justification for racism. So, it's entirely possible that Jews could believe that it is their "race" that created that "special relationship", or that the "special relationship" makes their race superior to others. Indeed, if one believed that there was just one "true god", and that he had one preferred people who were united by their genetic relationship, it's not a stretch to think that such people could indeed consider themselves to be superior or privileged. I am not suggesting that the Jews believe this, merely that the way that the explanation is written here goes nowhere toward disproving the accusation. Someone needs to rewrite it or strike it entirely. I might also point out that declaring the Anti-Defamation League to be an "authority" on whether or not Jewish "chosen-ness" could be racist is problematic, given that their raison d'etre is to defend Judaism from defamation, which charges of racism would surely be. Bricology (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

a slight tangent
but I just discovered this article and since I probably will never post here again thought that I'd leave this story behind. I was at a funeral of my wife's cousin - held in a Lutheran church because the family was Lutheran, sort of. It was at this funeral that the deceased's children learned that their mother, and thus they, were (was?) Jewish. So at one point the Lutheran minister says something about the Lutherans being "God's chosen people" and this was too much for Aunt Pauline who went air borne and was about the tell the minister (well, you figure it out). . when her husband dragged her back to her pew and clamped his hand over her mouth. So the moral is. . . . . . . .......   this "God's chosen" thing. It's, it was revealed to me, not just the Jews. Carptrash (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because of the common view that the Church is the "new Israel": it's not always clear whether this is meant literally or as a rhetorical analogy. The section of the Code of Canon Law dealing with the Catholic faithful generally is entitled "De Populo Dei", "About God's people". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So it really should be "God's new chosen people?" Surely not the "new God's chosen people?" Carptrash (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

السؤال
التوراة تقول ان اسرائيل هي شعب الله المختار. يعتقد المسيحيون في التوراة. ويعتقد المسلمون أعطى الله التوراة لشعب اسرائيل. ويعتقد المسلمون ان الله لا يغير رأيه. ثلاث ديانات نؤمن بأن الشعب اليهودي هو المنتخب؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.100.61 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

God changed his mind after he gave the Jews in the Torah? God changed his mind after he chose the Jews from all countries? God changed his mind after he loved the people of Israel? God changed his mind? We are confident that God does not change his mind! God is eternal! We need to respect the Jews because the Koran says God chose the Jews gave them the Torah! God does not change his mind! We need to respect the Jews because the Koran says so!

The Bible says that Israel is God's chosen people. Christians believe in the Torah. Muslims believe God gave the Torah to the people of Israel. Muslims believe that God does not change his mind. Three religions believes that the Jewish people he was elected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.74.90 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is an example
Of why wikipedia will never be accepted as a valid information source in academic circles.
 * You mean because folks such as yourself can edit without signing up? Carptrash (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Charges of Racism section
This section is completely unsourced and contains flat out lies that are not only POV and ridiculously biased against any mention of racism, they also have no sources to back them up either.

I have deleted, which has ended up being a great deal of it, this pitiful section and removed the practical vandalism that is the majority of it. I have left a basic sum up of what the section is about and the sourced article about it in relation to Soviet findings. If anyone wishes to rewrite it, sourced, they may do so. But until the section can be sorted do not automatically revert it or edit back in any POV statements, lies or unsourced idiocy.

If none of that can be done, then open up discussion about deletion of the section. 124.148.238.200 (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * Can you provide sources that contradict the sourced statements? The original research portion was removed. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Racism
Why is this article in the racism section?What this concept has of racist?Do you know at least what this concept is about?It's about an imaginary god visiting earth asking to all people to accept its commendments,but only jews accept.What there is of racism?--87.3.87.167 (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Google "goyim" and don't bother looking on Wikipedia about it, because Jews have flocked to this place to attack anyone with ANY criticism of the "chosen people". 174.54.36.247 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Cleanup" tag added
This article has way too many large block quotes. It should be written in a more encyclopedic manner, and editors should try to paraphrase the large quotes. The quotes can be kept, verbatim, in footnotes, if needed. --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruth
This section was excised: {| border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" align="center" width="90%" style="background-color: #EEEEEE;"

General overview
The common theme is that "Chosen People" are not a physical nation or race, but a people who have been granted a special desire to unite in common love for one another beyond all boundaries But the belief that Jews are the Chosen People actually has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. In fact, chosenness has so little to do with race that Jews believe the Messiah will be descended from Ruth, a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism and whose story is recorded in the biblical “Book of Ruth.” I excised it because one the one hand it was just copied and pasted from about.com but it is also misleading: Ruth was married to Boaz the great-grandfather of David, from whose line the Messiah was prophesied to come, but Jewish lineage is either matrilineal or patrilineal, and Ruth is in neither direct line - she was unrelated to David's mother. Oliver Low (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * }

Is Avi Beker a reconstructionist?
The paragraph from him is put in that section, automatically describing him as a reconstructionist, but it's not clear to me whether that is true based on his biography here and a quick google search. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in "Further Interpretations?"
From the "Further Interpretations" section: Bamidbar (Numbers) 13:15 reads: "Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi." Geuel was a prince of the tribe of Gad. It looks like it's a mistake to use this passage to support the assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFE2:AD60:A928:4804:E37F:BF88 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficulty with the text
The text has the following without citation: "The original text of the Tanya refers to the "idol worshippers" and does not mention the "nations of the world" at all..". However the first chapter of Tanya says:
 * מה שאין כן נפשות אומות העולם הן משאר קליפות טמאות שאין בהן טוב כלל כמו שכתוב בעץ חיים שער מ״ט פרק ג׳: וכל טיבו דעבדין האומות לגרמייהו עבדין

which chabad.org translates as
 * The souls of the nations of the world, however, emanate from the other, unclean kelipot which contain no good whatever, as is written in Etz Chayim, Portal 49, ch. 3, that all the good that the nations do, is done out of selfish motives.

I'm very far from being an expert on this subject, but it does seem that there is a problem here. Zerotalk 09:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on the Tanya either, but if the pattern follows what happened to Gemara, Rashi, Tosafos, and even some Zmiros, then the text you see on the website, the current text, is the redacted version. There are sefarim which bring the unexpurgated/uncensored Gemara and Rashi; perhaps there is one for Tanya as well. -- Avi (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ping:Avraham Hi, I understand the problem with censored texts, but I would have thought it was the other way around. In the case of the Talmud, phrases like idol worshipper were inserted in place of more general phrases (especially those which might be construed as applying to Christians).  But in any case I'll ask someone who  can usually track down such things. Zerotalk 10:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jews as the chosen people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805220714/http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf to http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand this article. Chosen for what?
Sorry, I don't understand this article. Chosen for what? There is a lot of religious jargon specific to that religion. I came here trying to find out more about this but I am left more confused. 109.147.155.66 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See Chosen people. Editor2020, Talk 02:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not make it clearer in the article what "chosen" means? 47.137.183.192 (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * First line: "In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews, via descent from the ancient Israelites, are the chosen people, i.e. chosen to be in a covenant with God."–Editor2020 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * IP has been blocked for racist trolling including holocaust denial. Doug Weller  talk 19:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jews as the chosen people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-state-of-jewish-belief-10853?page=all
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040825092219/http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/articles/rosenthal.htm to http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/articles/rosenthal.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040905200320/http://www.adatshalom.net/dvarchin/max.html to http://www.adatshalom.net/dvarchin/max.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031011093845/http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/churchmovement.asp to http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/churchmovement.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

What for God has them chosen?
Do you know any unbiased source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who could possibly in the Solar system be defined as 'unbiased'?

long-standing issue
For more than 6 years, the article has had this: "The Mishnah continues, and states that anyone who kills or saves a single human, not Jewish, life, it's as if they had saved or killed the entire world." I'm reluctant to edit this article at all, but I'll note that we are supposed to base it on secondary sources and not on our own analysis of primary texts. It is not universally accepted that the text refers to all humans and many manuscripts have "one soul of Israel", where "Israel" is the collective term for Jews. An online example that has both Hebrew and English is Sefaria. There is a huge amount of published discussion on this issue and the one-sided reference to a primary text should be replaced by a good balanced secondary source. Zerotalk 03:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You are right. I removed the claim.  --GHcool (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)