Talk:Judaism/Archive 1

November 2002 and before
This is in an idiosyncratic format, with all the embedded external links. External links (a) cannot be relied upon to remain at the current url or even to remain in existence at all and (b) should only supplement internal content. That said, it's an interesting article! --MichaelTinkler

"...God is non-physical, non-corporeal, and eternal. A corollary belief is that God is utterly unlike man, and can in no way be considered anthropomorphic. All statements in the Tanach and in rabbinic literature which use anthropomorphism are held to be linguistic conceits or metaphors, as it would otherwise be difficult to talk about God at all."


 * What about Genesis 1:26 and 27? "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ... So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." This sounds like a pretty explicit metaphor to me.

Were Judaism a religion directly based on the Bible, like Karaism, Samaratinism and Christianity, then your conclusion would be indisputable. But Judaism is not directly based on the Bible. It is actually based two sets of writings - the oral law and the written law. The written law contains the books of the Tanach, what Chrisitians refer to as the "Old Testament"; the oral law contains information that developed simulataneously along with the written law, explaining its meaning, context and intent. This material used to be passed along almost exclusively orally (hence its name), but around 200 CE much of this material was compiled into the Mishnah. Around 450 CE much more of it was compiled in Talmud Yerushalmi, and around 600 CE much more was compiled in Talmud Bavli.

Jewish beliefs and practices are all based on viewing the written law through the lens of the oral law; this is why Judaism has little in common with Karaism, Christianity or Samaritarianism. The oral law makes clear that even thousands of years ago Jews never literally believed that God had a hand, or a voice, or a face or a back, as a literal reading of the Torah would imply. (Whether or not ancient Israelites actually believed this is not relevant; that is a historical issue. The religious point is that for the past 2500 years most Jews have believed that this oral law had been there all along.) Maimonides' magnum opus, the Guide for the Perplexed, is widely considered one of the most influential and sophisticated theological and philosophical discussions of the era, and the first third of this book is spent disabusing readers of the notion that God had any anthropomorphic attributes at all. (Again, what the original writers of the Bible had in mind is irrelevant to this point; I am just noting what Jews of the past two milennia believed, not whether their ancestors further back in time actually had such beliefs.) RK]]

great article. one topic i'd like to see covered (mostly because it's something i know nothing about) - the rabbinate. how does one become a rabbi? how has this changed over time? is there a Jewish rite of ordination analogous to the Christian rite? is there a Jewish notion of valid rabbinic succession analogous to the Christian doctrine of apostolic succession?


 * There is now a link in this article to a new entry on rabbis, and on how one becomes a rabbi.

Why is this page so wide? Or is it just my browser? --rmhermen


 * Sometimesd Wikipedia entries display incorrectly if the basic text of the article has minor sentence formatting irregularities. I edited the text, and more properly separated a few paragraphs. This seems to have fixed the problem. RK]

I was looking for information on the Cohanim and the Priestly caste of pre-rabbinic judaism, and there doesn't seem to be anything here. I'm just noting this because it seems like it would be a valuable addition. Unfortunately, history before the Destruction of the Second Temple is not my strong suit, so I wouldn't feel comfortable adding the articles myself, but hopefully someone will see this and take the task on.JFQ


 * We're working on it. See the link to the new entry on Kohen. RK

Note - we still need people to work on the Kohen article, the article on the concept of the priesthood in Biblical and rabbinic Judaism.

I am removing the following misleading claim: "Note: This treatment is from the point of view of Conservative Judaism. 'Ultra Orthodox' Jews would treat the subject quite differently."

This quote is being removed because it is wrong. There is nothing in this entry that is unique to Conservative Judaism. You can find the same impartial, historical analysis of Judaism by secular Jews who are not affiliated with any religious denomination; by Reform Jews; by Conservative Jews; and even by some Modern Orthodox Jewish scholars. It is correct, however, to note that Ultra-Orthodox Jews would find everything in this article heretical, because they teach that any historical and neutral analysis of their religion or Bible is heresy by definition. Many even view all of Orthodox Judaism as heretical, except for Ultra-Orthodoxy itself. But please nore that the same is true of Muslim fundamentalists, in regard to every single article that relates to Islam and the Koran, and to Christian fundamentalists, in regard to every single article that relates that Christianity, Judaism and the Bible. We can, if we like, add this sort of warning to all these articles. However, it is given that the entire purpose of this encyclopaedia is to create a neutral point of view (NPOV) analysis of topics. All of our articles are written from a historical and NPOV stance, which by definition is non-religious. Thus it would seem that dozens (if not hundreds) of articles we have could warrant the warning that fundamentlist religious groups disagree with it. I am open to finding a way to state this impartially, and for all articles dealing with all faiths. I just wouldn't want to see it here alone. RK

Ezra writes: I agree with your stand that this disclaimer does not belong here and that all of the pages dealing with Judaism and perhaps religion need serious reworking and that rather than putting a disclaimer on all the pages, they should be reworked.


 * But I never wrote any such thing; in fact I proposed the exact opposite. We should definately not rewrite every article in Wikipedia to make them acceptable to religious fundamentalists. That would be a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and a total abdication of scholarship. It seems that you personally don't yet have the ability to work with people whose point of view differs from your own. RK

Although I would agree that many "Ultra-Orthodox" would not approve of showing a page such as this to their children, because they would not be interested in teaching them a point of view other than their own, it does not mean that their point of view cannot be stated neutrally.


 * Um, who said otherwise? Of course the entry on this subject attempts to descrive the ultra-Orthodox view correctly and neutrally. Rather, it is your proposed changes that violate neutrality, and would make it written from an ultra-Orthodox perspective. That is out of line for a secular encycloapedia. This encycloapedia is not appropriate for religious proselytization. RK

It should be possible to structure the pages on Judaism in such a way that nobody reading them would be offended.


 * No, anyone who knows anything about the human race knows that this would be impossible. When it comes to religion, there is no way that ever person can agree. What we can do, however, is try to use the best scholarship available to describe the historical origin and development of a religion. Then we make sure to add the points of view of its major denominations of adherents, and of course this should include Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Reform Judaism, etc. But the problem here is that any mention of dispassionate historical at all offends Ultra-Orthodox Jews (as well as fundamentalist Christians, and fundamentalist Muslims) and they then demand that the entire entry be rewritten in accord with their beliefs. And that demand is something that a non-religious encycloapedia can not meet. RK

Ezra Wax writes "The quoting of a Conservative Rabbi can and should be separated out of a general overview of Judaism. If he is saying something unique to Conservative Judaism, then he should be quoted in a section dealing with Conservative Judaism. If he is saying something that everybody would agree with, then some other neutral source should be found."


 * To some extent, I agree. But I wonder what you consider "Conservative", and what you consider "everybody". I known that some of Orthodox Judaism is now considered "Conservative", or even "Reform" by those on the right-wing. RK

Likewise, any theological differences that would be offensive to any segment of Judaism should be discussed in a way that makes it clear who espouses it and who would find it offensive and why.


 * Please re-read the entry. Theological differences already are stated in great detail, and the reaons are already stated as well. Are there any specific changes you propose? If so, please do so, and we can work them out one at a time. There is always room for improvement RK

Many "Ultra-Orthodox" Jews do not approve of the study of philosophy as is briefly mentioned in the above link. This does not mean that there is no NPOV way of describing their views, it just means that they would not recommend their views being taught to their children (even perhaps seventy year old children) in a NPOV way. They have a point of view and they have the right to teach it to their children.

I did not edit what you wrote originally, because it was too large a task to undertake in a short time. I went through the different pages discussing Judaism and I saw so much anti-Ultra-Orthodox propaganda here, I decided that the simplest way to start tackling it was to post propaganda taking the opposite point of view.

As a matter of fact, I think that all the extreme statements that have been attributed to the Ultra-Orthodox were said for that reason. It was too difficult to fight the other point of view and therefore it was more efficient to counter their propaganda with propaganda of their own.

Furthermore, it takes a lot more time to write and support a detailed refutation of somebody else's point of view. Finding sources is not always easy. If you are taught that something is true, then you can tell it to somebody else very easily whether you have the source or not.


 * Those views of Orthodox Judaism that are not universal should also be treated as such. I would treat everything up to the beginning of the enlightenment separately. I would describe it all in neutral terms without quoting any sources later than that period. Anything that cannot be described using that method would be treated separately.


 * Judaism past that time should not be divided up into categories such as Reform and Conservative, rather it should be divided up by ideas and those ideas should be noted as being held by Conservative, Reform etc. The originator of each idea should be noted, and the controversy surrounding the idea should be elaborated on. EW

Also, being that "Ultra-Orthodox" Jews do not approve of their religion being presented in NPOV it has to be made clear when presenting the religion that its presentation itself is controversial and this controversy must be removed as much as possible and isolated. And of course, there is the problem with the categorization. The term "Ultra-Orthodox" is considered a derogatory term akin to nigger. You cannot possibly claim NPOV when you call your subject nigger. --Ezra Wax


 * Where is this polemic coming from? Your claim is false. Ultra-Orthodox Jews themselves will occasionally use this term to differentiate themselves from Modern Orthodox Jews. Further, the majority of NPOV (neutral point of view) published and peer-review scholarship on this subject uses this very term. Even Orthodox Jewish scholars use this same excat term. You are obviously coming to this from a very biased point of view, so biased that you end up slandering many Orthodox Jews themselves! Please take the time to go to a library and read a few dozen articles and books on this subject, as I have done, or spend a many years doing so, as Danny has done. You will learn that words like "Ultra-Orthodox" or "Classical German Reform" are useful adjectives, and not hatespeech. RK


 * I see your point of view. I always viewed it differently. I have heard people who were offended by the term. Whenever I have seen the term used in literature I have always assumed it was by somebody who was not sensitive to the issue. The fact that people use a derogatory term to describe themselves is no proof that it is not derogatory. Witness the use of nigger by Huckleberry Finn. Or that even though many Indians find the term "Indian" derogatory, they will use it to describe themselves because that is what a non-indian will call an Indian. The fact that Ultra-Orthodox use the term to describe themselves is only because there is no better term. EW


 * Ultra-Orthodox Jews also use the term Haredi. RK


 * I never heard the term Haredi used before I went to Israel. That term is primarily used in Israel. It is rarely used by them in North America. Perhaps in literature that you have seen it is used, but not in daily conversation or in most literature that I have seen. Ezra Wax


 * How can you try and present the Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) point of view when you are so unread on the topic? The term Haredi is very commonly used among North American Jews. I am having a hard time respecting your point of view, as you simply don't seem to have any knowledge of the subject.

Ezra Wax writes "Those views of Orthodox Judaism that are not universal should also be treated as such. I would treat everything up to the beginning of the enlightenment separately. I would describe it all in neutral terms without quoting any sources later than that period. Anything that cannot be described using that method would be treated separately."


 * We cannot do this. In fact, it is literally impossible to write a dispassionate and neutral point of view (NPOV) article without using the results and findings of modern day historical research and scholarship. If we prevent ourseleves using historical research to describe pre-Enlightenment events, then we might as well give up on the project altogether. We would have nothing left but religious polemics. If we adopted your proposal, the only material we could use on pre-Enlightenment Judaism would be biased Jewish, Christian and Islamic polemics on Judaism (some pro-, many con-.) You still misunderstand what NPOV means. It does not mean that everyone agrees. It means that we write on religious topics without proselytizing, without religious polemics, and without accepting as factual every religious claim. NPOV means that we treat all religions in the same way, and we analyze them historically and dispassionately.  RK


 * It is possible to present the entire story in a NPOV way that both Haredi and non-Haredi Jews will be happy with. There might have to be a few compromises, but they can be minimized. The best treatment I have seen is the one presented by the soc.culture.jewish faq. It is not perfect, but something along those lines is what I have in mind.


 * This would be a very bad idea. The SCJ FAQ does not attempt to maintain NPOV. It is a religious and pro-Jewish document. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jewish people being pro-Judaism; I happen to be a religious Jew myself. But if I am going to contribute to a non-religious encyclopaedia that depends on disapassionate historical scholarship, then intellectual integrity forces me to accept the findings of such scholarship, even when it contradicts what I may previously have believed to be correct. For instance, the SCJ FAQ holds as a valid point of view that the current text of the Torah was written by Moses. Such a claim would be out of line in any non-Orthodox Jewish encyclopaedia. Scholarship has proven that the current text of the Torah was redacted together from several earlier documents. The fundamentalist claim has been proven to be untenable. Wikipedia can - and alreayd does - explain why fundamentalist Jews and Christians reject such findings, but it does not and shall not present the fundamentlist view as having equally valid scientific claims to truth.

''For instance, the SCJ FAQ holds as a valid point of view that the current text of the Torah was written by Moses. Such a claim would be out of line in any non-Orthodox Jewish encyclopaedia.''


 * That is debatable. Here is the Columbia Encyclopedia's definition of Torah. You can check it on the web for yourself. It presents only the Orthodox Jewish point of view, and is a non-Orthodox Jewish Encyclopedia. Clearly it does not feel that stressing the views of the non-Orthodox is required in order to be NPOV. I would like to say that the method being used here is over emphasizing the importance of the scholarship being used.


 * (tôr´) (KEY) [Heb.,=teachings or learning], Hebrew name for the five books of Moses—the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. The Torah is believed by Orthodox Jews to have been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai and transmitted by him to the Jews. It laid down the fundamental laws of moral and physical conduct. The Torah begins with a description of the origin of the universe and ends on the word Israel, after the story of the death of Moses, just before the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. In a wider sense the Torah includes all teachings of Judaism, the entire Hebrew Bible and the Talmud.


 * If this is all that it says, then this would be laughed out of any University, as well as any decent seminary. Did you check out what this same encycloapedia says on Biblical scholarship, the Documentary hypothesis, archaeology and the Bible, and Near-Eastern textual scholarship? If not, why did you leave these critical parts out? And if the encyclopaedia does not contain entries on these, then your point is useless: In the latter case it would only prove that this particular encyclopaedia simply never discussed the topics to begin with. RK


 * Here is the entry on Moses. It is much more objective than what you find on Wikipedia. It mentions that his historical existence has been questioned but still points out that there is no real reason to question it. It makes clear that while it is possible to question the authorship of the Torah, it is a very minor opinion. Haredi Judaism would deride those opinions and perhaps find a way more acceptable to themselves to describe them, but we have to have at least this level of objectivity. BTW, in my opinion quoting the entire entry of both of these articles is fair use, as it is only intended for discussion purposes and not for general use. :


 * (m´zs) (KEY), Hebrew lawgiver, probably b. Egypt. The prototype of the prophets, he led his people in the 13th cent. B.C. out of bondage in Egypt to the edge of Canaan. The narrative in the Bible is the chief source of information on his life. His historical existence has been questioned, although there is nothing improbable about the general outline of the narrative after allowances for distortion over time are made. According to the biblical account, Moses was divinely protected as an infant, and as a young man he received a special calling at the burning bush. He lived in constant touch with God, who guided him in leading all Israel out of Egypt and across the desert. Through him God promulgated the Law, including the Ten Commandments, the criminal code, and the whole liturgical law. In his old age, when the Hebrews were at the Jordan River ready to cross, God gave Moses a view of the Promised Land from Mt. Pisgah; but he did not enter it, for he died and was buried in Moab. All this is recounted in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The authorship of these and Genesis (collectively called the Pentateuch) has been ascribed to Moses since earliest times; hence they are called the Books of Moses. The Law he promulgated is called the Mosaic law, the Torah. Few critics would argue that Moses actually authored the Pentateuch. Moses, one of the great names of Hebrew history, is referred to repeatedly in the Jewish, Christian, amd Muslim scriptures. In the Qur’an, Moses is a precursor of Muhammad, confirming God’s revelation to Abraham. Among the Pseudepigrapha is a Testament of Moses.   1

See E. Auerbach, Moses (1975); G. W. Coats, Moses (1988).


 * I'm sorry, but you seem to have totally misread the text. It states the precise opposite of what you claim. It admits that few biblical critics would admit that Torah authored the Penateuch (Torah.) Actually, that is a severe understatement. With the exception of a handful of Christian and Jewish fundamentalists, there is not a single scholar of the Bible that now believes that Moses wrote it. That is the overwhelming mainstream view. Even many in Orthodox Judaism now accept this (and I can cite many sources if you like.) RK

''Scholarship has proven that the current text of the Torah was redacted together from several earlier documents. The fundamentalist claim has been proven to be untenable.''


 * This is clearly false in the opinion of the Columbia Encyclopedia. It does not deny the possibility, but it discounts it. Haredi Judaism would be much more emphatic about discounting the possibility, but at the very least this level of objectivity should be reached.


 * Absolutely wrong. The Encyclopaedia says the exact opposite of what you wrote. You need to re-read it. In any case, the Columbia encyclopaedia is not a good source for this topic. Why are you ignoring the last 150 years of biblical scholarship? Wikipedia is not the place for you or anyone else to carry on a crusade against modernity. It seems to me that this is not a place for you as long as you are unread in modern biblical scholarship. RK

''Wikipedia ... does not and shall not present the fundamentlist view as having equally valid scientific claims to truth.''


 * The scientific method itself does not require truth. It allows one to start with a hypothesis and treat it as the truth until it is disproved. In other words, anything claimed by science is only a claim that it has not been disproved. The Haredi view is that there are facts that we (Haredim at least) know, we (Haredim) have been taught them by our (the parents of Haredim) parents and while there are some errors in the transmission, for the most part they can be ignored as extreme care was made during transmission, and documentation for that extreme care can be provided.


 * Irrelevant. You are trying to justify presenting fundamentalist religious beliefs as facts. Why not accept the fundamentalist Christian or Hindu beliefs as facts, and disprove the Torah altogether? RK


 * It turns out that science is based on conjecture, and Haredi scholarship is based on truth (at the very least the claim of truth, something science cannot pretend to claim.) While the scientific method has produced many results, they do not describe the truth, they are just a summary of known facts.


 * Using a method of historical research that is not acceptable to both sides is not NPOV. It is possible to discuss the issue using both methods of historical research, and give them equal weight. I fail to see your great fascination with modernity. It assumes that people nowadays are in some demonstrable way better than earlier generations. That is an unproven assertion, and it is false. It simply that the style has changed, and that certain methods that were previously used have been more developed, but the pros and cons of the earlier methods can be discussed. In any case you take as a given that the decisions made during the enlightenment were correct. That is the point of Haredi Judaism they are protesting that assumption. If you want a NPOV you must be prepared to accept that criticism and look at your opinion in that light, however difficult it is and however uncomfortable it makes you. Ezra Wax

Ezra writes "Using a method of historical research that is not acceptable to both sides is not NPOV. It is possible to discuss the issue using both methods of historical research, and give them equal weight."


 * No, this is not possible to do while still maintaining NPOV. There are no both sides of the story to the validity of historical scholarship. Ultra-Orthodox Jews reject the validity of all historical research as heretical. There is no form of research, archaoelogy or science that they accept as valid. The only times they accept statements as valid is when they happen to agree 100% with their own pre-decided views. Wikipedia in no way, shape or form will ever allow religious fundamentlist readings of the Bible (or Talmud, or New Testament, or Koran) to be presented as having the same scientific status as impartial and NPOV historical research. You still fail to grasp the point. RK

''No, this is not possible to do while still maintaining NPOV. ''
 * The level of the Columbia Encyclopedia can at least be attained, and perhaps bettered.

There are no both sides'' of the story to the validity of historical scholarship. ''


 * Each method used by historical scholarship has to be evaluated independently. Historical revisionism has been misused in other areas, and Haredim will maintain it has been misused in this area as well. This does not have to be an opinion. If you wish to revise history (and I mean this in a neutral sense) then you must present your case. Otherwise history as it stood before the revision (i.e. before the enlightenment) still stands.


 * Absolutely false. Ultra-Orthodox Jews do not make this claim. You are deliberately misrepresenting their views.

''Ultra-Orthodox Jews reject the validity of all historical research as heretical. ''
 * That is not the case. When the historian is a heretic, then his subjective judgements are suspected to contain heresy. Therefore, scientists who are followers of movements that are considered heretical by Haredis, must have their results closely scrutinized before being accepted. Any scholarship that relies on theory, is to a certain degree subjective.


 * In addition, people tend to overlook minor bits of information that do not fit in with their theories. A lover of the truth wants the truth, but if the truth must be colored, then they will only accept it colored with their color.

i>There is no form of research, archaoelogy or science that they accept as valid. 


 * I would change that to: There is no form of research which contains a certain measure of subjectivity including archaeology and many sciences that they will accept as valid when undertaken by somebody who they consider a heretic.

Haredim do also have to broken down into separate groups. An opinion held by some is not held by others. And some of the opinions are mutually incompatible such as holding both of them is untenable, but holding one or the other works just fine, and even being of the opinion that both are valid and which set to hold is a personal choice. To this end. There are Haredim such as some followers of Rabbi Samson Rephael Hirsch who do attend universities and participate in all forms of scientific endeavors and while they may be criticized at times, no Haredi will consider them heretical or their research suspect. There are Haredim who while they won't attend a regular university, will attend a university such as Touro College whose environment has been tailored to their needs, such as having non coed classes and not having to attend classes which contain controversial topics.

As a general rule Haredim believe that the only worthwhile pursuit is service of God. Therefore whatever they do must be explained in that light. When they eat, it must be for the purpose to have strength to serve him. The same goes for sleeping. They work in order to have money to take care of their needs. If they pursue a career it is in order to have an enjoyable method of earning a living. Any entertainment must be for the purpose of relaxing the mind so that more service can be rendered to God. etc. In addition, each of these activities should in themselves be done in a way that serves God directly, if possible.

The greatest service of God is generally considered to be Torah study (although there might be some who disagree). As a result there are those whose opinion that no career be pursued other than the study of Torah, and everything else will take care of itself. There are people who have pursued this method and succeeded. Therefore, these people are of the opinion that everybody should take this road and only if they fail are see failure as likely should they take the road the rest of the world takes. Many students Rabbi Aharon Kotler's yeshiva in Lakewood are of this opinion. These students would never end up in a university as they would avoid it with all their might because they have to study Torah, and if they do decide to enter the workforce, they generally enter it in a way that does not require a university education.

Then there are those who consider the left leaning atmosphere of a university dangerous, and that it must be avoided at all costs, but still believe think that spending all day learning is unrealistic for most people. They would go into business for themselves, join a family business, or do work that does not require university schooling. You will find many of the Chassidim in New York are of this opinion. Even they will recognize secular scholarship that is undertaken by those who are unbiased. They will recognize that although they believe that it is not advisable to place oneself in a university atmosphere because it is tainted, somebody who does so while following one of the other Haredi traditions can come through for the most part unscathed. They would critically read something written by a Haredi had gone to university and pass judgement on it according to its merits.

As a general rule Haredim look for a letter of approbation written by a well know rabbi regarding any work of scholarship. This allows them to read the work uncritically. The letter of approbation usually testifies that the writer is a God fearing jew, and a scholar. It praises the purpose of the work, and gives the author of the work a blessing that his work should be successful. Any work that cannot meet these criteria will not receive an approbation from a well known Haredi Rabbi. However, it is told that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the foremost rabbis of the previous generation,would give a letter of approbation to anybody who asked, because somebody once committed suicide when he refused to.

The letter of approbation generally does not guarantee the quality of scholarship. Most rabbis who write such letters do not have the time to critically examine the entire work. Instead they allow their knowledge of the author and his reputation to speak for itself. As such, the primary purpose of the letters is to warn against non-Haredim masquerading as Haredim, and those of dubious reputation, from getting their works accepted as those which can be read uncritically from a faith point of view. The quality of the scholarship is placed secondary to the faith of the scholar. However, this does not mean that poor scholarship goes unchecked. It just means that the scholarship has to stand on its own merits.

Even so, many Haredim even though they belong to any one of the above groups, will still view works without letters of approbation, and simply view them a lot more critically. When society in general comes to a conclusion different than that espoused in the Torah, Charedim consider the entire line of reasoning suspect. They follow the dictum of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa (Avos 3:11) who says that he whose fear of sin takes precedence over his desire for wisdom, will have lasting wisdom, but he whose desire for wisdom takes precedence over his fear of sin will not have lasting wisdom. As such, they detest any scholarship which they feel does not do the same. Ezra Wax

Ezra writes "Each method used by historical scholarship has to be evaluated independently. Historical revisionism has been misused in other areas, and Haredim will maintain it has been misused in this area as well. This does not have to be an opinion. If you wish to revise history (and I mean this in a neutral sense) then you must present your case. Otherwise history as it stood before the revision (i.e. before the enlightenment) still stands."


 * This is dangerous fundamentalist drivel. Ezra, please go away. We will not allow your fundamentalist and anti-historical polemics to rewrite the last 150 years of scholarship on this subject.


 * I can't defend a group I know nothing about, but RK, are you saying that a religiously committed view is equivalent to bias and therefore is categorically excluded? Forgive my presumption but, if that's the case, wouldn't that explain why 150 years of scholarship would need to be re-written? -- Mkmcconn


 * Mkmcconn, I think you state RK's point way too broadly. The issue is not whether "a religiously committed view" is categorically excluded; it all hinges on the nature of the committment.  The scientific method is based on constant questioning of truth-claims based on new experiences and evidence.  In other words, one must be willing to change one's mind -- I think the only limit to this principle, the only hting a scientist could not change his or her mind about (without leaving the realm of science) is that there is a world that we can know (however incompletely) through experience.  Everything else is up for grabs.  I think that what RK is reacting to is the claim (or perceived claim) that there are somethings that cannot be questioned, no matter what the evidence is.


 * A second issue implicit in the argument between Ezra and RK is what is the basis for truth-claims: authority, or evidence available to all? If I understand RK correctly, I agree that a Wikipedia article cannot assert claims about the world based solely on authority; such claims must be based on all sorts of evidence (in the articles in question, a variety of texts and archeological remains).


 * My aopologies to RK or Ezra if I have misrepresented their views -- if so, though, please explain how/why, Slrubenstein

A peculiar situation sometimes arises in scholarship on religious subjects, when a religious group is treated as a specimen to study, but is not allowed to directly inform how it is described. When this happens, scholarship is really studying itself. All of the religion articles will have this problem to some extent - it goes with the territory. When experience is sometimes (really or imagined) in a radically different context than is supposed by those who study the experiences of others, there's going to be a conflict of visions; and unless Wikipedia is going to declare itself authoritative concerning which context is the real one, it will have to (somehow fairly) allow itself to be subjected to some very odd-sounding interpretations of the facts. Now, I do believe that there is one context that all people (in fact) have in common. But apparently, Ezra Wax would disagree with me about what that context is, and as much as I might want to do otherwise (for my own sanity), I should restrain myself for the sake of the argument, from censoring him by ruling out of bounds his idea of authority. Am I rambling? Am I wrong? -- Mkmcconn


 * I think the issue you raise is not peculiar to religion but to all situations where we talk about people and things people do. And I certainly think we must take what people say seriously.  But

1) you can make claims about yourself, and you can make claims about others, and you need to distinguish between these claims. There is a difference between what "Ezra Wax" believes, versus Ezra Wax's claims about what "Torah Jews" believe, versus Torah Jews' claims about what "Jews" believe.

2) I know of no human being who has total self-knowledge, let alone total knowledge of others or the world. So no one's claims, even about themselves, can be taken at face-value.

This doesn't mean knowledge is not possible, but it should lead us to be highly skeptical of the most general claims people make, as well as claims to absolute authority. Slrubenstein


 * That's well said. And in this case, reading what he says more closely, Ezra Wax is simply claiming that within certain Jewish circles, Mosaic authorship should be given credit, on the basis of Biblical and Traditional authority, rather than simply presupposing that authority destroys knowledge, and makes every propositions unfalsifiable.  I see then that Ezra Wax and I have something in common after all; and at the risk of discrediting myself as a "fundamentalist" in the process, isn't it possible that the scholarship of the last 150 years has not been truly objective in this regard? Is it impossible that it's been prematurely confident concerning its conclusions because it has categorically excluded a specific kind of challenge to its own general claims.  If that is possible, then the claims it makes for its own authority should be debateable, shouldn't they?  -- Mkmcconn


 * Science claims authority for its methods, not its findings per se. This is the difference between science and attempts by religious dogmat to intrude on the domaine of science.  After all, soon as "Traditional authority" sets itself up for falsifiability, then it opens itself to the possibility that it might be wrong about its claims about history or other worldly phenomena.  However, if Traditional authority denies that its claims can be false, and it refuses to subject itself to falsifiability, then its claims to authority are worthless.  This is the problem with all religious dogmas that resist science, and it is the one thing that I find personally most offensive about fundamentalism and its allies.  Resistance to reason and scientific inquiry because the results of science might call into question its dogmas about the phenomena of the world is simply a recipe for ignorance, and it just plain makes religion look bad when it doesn't have to.  There are plenty of people of faith who do accept science and the scientific method.


 * Science can and does give credence to traditions, but, unlike the dogmatism that insists that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and which refuses to even open the question up for debate, science opens its claims up for debate. Science only has "authority" because it freely opens its claims to falsification.  That doesn't mean that science can't have some pretty good confidence about a lot of its claims.  But this relates to a concept that someone (was it Thomas Kuhn?) came up with, called "verissimilitude".  Science is pretty confident that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  It is less confident about other things.  So certainly science can accept challenges to its claims, to varying extents depending on the degree of verissimilitude that it seems to have accomplished, but the one challenge that science can withstand without question is the assault on its methods by those who insist that their beliefs about God or the ultimate reality give them a right to also impose their dogmas about events in the material and physical world without needing to subject them to any questions or examination.


 * That being said, there is no question that some credence should certain be given to traditions as a source of information that science can use to draw its conclusions. But it is never, and can never, treated as an infallible source.  And this is the difference between science and dogma.  (Questions about Mosaic authorship came up long before the theories of authors like J and P were posited, by the way, so the idea that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch has been a sort of "minority report" anyway; it wasn't invented out of thin air.)  soulpatch


 * As I've said before, I think the fundamental difference is whether the only knowledge we can have is what we receive through empiricism. This is a philosophical question. Science presumes empiricism, or at least limits itself to empiricism and is silent on the rest. Religion claims to have knowledge received other ways. It is not somehow more NPOV or even scientific to deny that such knowledge is possible; that's a philosophical position. Scientists can say that that empirical evidence appears to contradict religious claims, or that it fails to support religious claims (which is probably more often the case), but I think that's as much as it can say objectively. Wesley


 * Wesley, I think the issue for me is what we mean by "religious claim." One can reject evolution on non-religious grounds, and many religious people accept Darwin.  Is what makes "creationism" a "religious claim" the fact that it is made by religious people, or that people base it on divine authority, or that people see it is alementary to their religion?  I think we might all agree on the answer to this quesion; my point is really that there are different kinds of religious claims.  SOme claims might take the form of an empirical claim and thus come into conflict with science; other claims may not.  Wittgenstein (and I am sure others) does point out that there are other kinds of knowledge that are neither empirical nor empirically verifiable -- but he does point out that such forms of knowledge cannot be talked about using the same language as science. Slrubenstein


 * I am not denying that knowledge is possible from means other than empiricism. I have religious beliefs of my own, and I believe that people can know God through non-empirical means.  What I am saying is that the knowledge that revelation gives people cannot be contradicted by empirical knowledge, because if it is, then it is nonsense, pure and simple.  Religious knowledge and empircal knowledge deal with different realms.  Any attempt by religion to make scientific claims based on "revelation" is bound to be a failure.  We have thousands of years of experience to show this.  From Galileo to Darwin, we have seen time and time again that religions that try to intrude on the realm that rightly belongs to science with their own claims of "revelation" will simply fall flat on their faces.  Religion has its realm, and science has its own.  Religion has no business intruding on the scientific method.  Religion deals with ultimate questions that science has no business intruding upon.  My objection is to attempts by some religons (especially fundamentalism) to attack science and reason in areas of knowledge that rightly belong to empiricism.  And if empiricism contradicts religious dogma, then maybe the problem is that the dogma is misplace; in any case, an encylopedia should not be paying hommage to ignorance.  Religion need not be ignorant anyway; there are plenty of people of faith who, for example, accept evolutionary science or Biblical higher criticism.   soulpatch


 * Good points, both of you. I agree that there are different kinds of religious claims, and that in general religion and science deal with different questions. Perhaps the issue is what to do when they overlap, and determining what is and isn't a proper overlapping. For instance, I don't mind science looking to darwinism or other naturalistic explanations for how the world we live in got here and came to be the way it is. If science concludes from its findings that God does not exist, than science has overstepped its bounds, just as religion oversteps if it insists on a literal 6-day creation based solely on a literal reading of Genesis. Perhaps a better example is of a severely sick person who becomes suddenly well following prayer or other religious ritual, without medical explanation. Of course this sort of thing doesn't empirically prove that God exists; at the same time, the possibility of a miracle should not be completely discounted just because the explanation depends on the reality of supernatural phenomena. If a sick person gets better in the 'usual' way following a medical course of treatment, this does not 'prove' that God was not involved either. Sorry if I'm rambling; main point is that while science and religion generally deal with different questions, they sometimes try to explain the same thing... like who wrote the Pentateuch for example. I'm not sure that this question is completely out of bounds of either. Neither should be completely dismissed out of hand simply because "that's a religious explanation and therefore invalid" or "that's a Enlightenment critical history interpretation and therefore invalid". Wesley


 * This is also fairly put. But, as Ezra Wax has already said (I think), the point at which authority seems to trump scientific method should be scientifically discovered, rather than presume that this problem occurs all along the way (in his response to the charge that "ultra-orthodox reject all scholarship).  Until recently, science has been a dialogue, not a monologue.   For example, in this case of Mosaic authorship, there have been many ideas among "fundamentalists", suggesting ways that the observations of textual critics can be put to profitable use.  Some of these require departures from traditional views, and some of them don't; some of them have academic credibility, and some of them don't.  But in order even to hear what they have to say, it is necessary that they not be prejudicially censored from bringing authority into their treatment of the facts.  Instead, why not require, if they are to enter into the scientific discussion, that even if they look through an unmistakably religious-colored glasses, they must look at and speak of the facts; and then, leave it up to the reader to decide which is the less prejudicial treatment, rather than prejudicing the case by excluding religion as irrelevant?  (By the way, RK, I think that yours is the correct reading of the Encyclopedia entry quoted above). -- Mkmcconn

RK - Please explain what you mean by culture. I, and many Orthodox Jews would consider religion the primary distinguishing characteristic of a Jew. I would say that it is at least under dispute. The fact that somebody is halachically considered a Jew even though he doesn't practice doesn't change that. Orthodox Judaism would consider him a Jew whose religion is not Judaism. Orthodox Judaism would consider a Conservative or a Reform Jew a Jew whose religion is not Judaism as well. (See following article.)Ezra Wax

P.S. I did not ignore the above debate, rather I thought it could be handled more rationally by others.


 * Jews have always had more than just beliefs in common. If Judaism were a religion, in the commonly-used, modern day sense of the word, then it would be based on one beliefs. In this case, anyone who accepted Jewish principles of faith would be a Jew, and anyone who rejected them would not be a Jew. But from the times of the Mishnah up to today, rabbinic Judaism has absolutely rejected this idea. Judaism has always held that our actions matter more than our words. Many religious and observant Jews don't believe every single one of Maimonide's principles of faith, but follow Jewish law, pray in the synagogue, and are accepted by Orthodox Judaism as people who are indeed followers of Judaism. By the very actions of both Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism, we see that people view Judaism as much more than a religion; it is a peoplehood; that's why we sometimes use the term Klal Yisrael to denote the Jewish people. Judaism has a common history, homeland, language, theology, liturgy and set of practices; all of these things together make up the Jewish culture. I am not denying any of Judaism's religious aspects (far from it); I merely am affirming that Judaism contains more than just beliefs.  RK


 * Are you suggesting that most religions are only belief systems? It seems that most religions have a similar set of practices; Christians attend church, Muslims pray five times a day, Buddhists pray in their homes and at shrines, all have additional prayers and/or rituals for special days and occasions. The thing that makes Judaism look most like a culture is the shared history and homeland. Even there, there's also a good bit of cultural diversity between Jews living in Europe, North America, Israel, North Africa and elsewhere, is there not? Wesley


 * Christians have alwayd defined their religions as belief system. Prayers do not make a religion any less belief-driven; in fact, prayers are an expression of the beliefs of the people saying the prayers. The majority of Chrisitian groups (perhaps all) have never defined their religions as ethnicities, nationalities, cultures. etc. If you accept the principles taught by a Christian denomination, then you can become a member of that denomination. But it doesn't work that way in culture based religions like Judaism.


 * I'll agree with your claim concerning Judaism, but your broad statement about Christianity simply isn't true. I would respond in detail, but I see this point is already being resolved below. Wesley

As the following article was summarily deleted, and I do not wish to get into an edit war, I'll post it here so that it can be discussed. I feel that the main Judaism page is highly biased and that any sort of editing that I attempt has and will be immediately attacked. I believe that the following information is neutral and accurate the way it is. I was very careful not to put in any polemics. I understand neutral to mean attributing views to those who hold them and not implying that people hold views which they don't. Ezra Wax


 * I am sensitive to your concerns, and I wish to point out that none of us mind trying to understand and learn from your contributions. However, the way in which that particular article was made, it was apparently made as a protest to a Wikipedia article, and not as a contribution to the article made in a scholarly fashion.  Further, and this has nothing to do with your point o view, it was a duplication of articles that already exist!  Don't create a new article on Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, when all of these articles are already in existence. Instead, offer suggestions to improve the articles we already have. We should only create new articles when we need to explain new topics. It would be much easier if you focused on one point at a time. In any particular entry that bothers you, pick one paragraph, and explain why in the Talk section and offer any suggested changes. But please understand that we wish to use the consensus of modern historical scholarship in constructing our entries. RK


 * The division of Judaism into the three major branches of Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Reform Judaism is accepted by non-Orthodox Jews


 * Orthodox Judaism is defined as anyone who adheres to a strict interpretation of the law of the Torah and rejects the validity of the other branches of Judaism, but although disagreeing on points with other Orthodox Jews, still affirms their validity.


 * Orthodox Jews are dissatisfied with the term Orthodox Judaism because they hold that Judaism is by definition orthodox, and the modifier Orthodox can be misunderstood as meaning that that they consider other forms valid.


 * What constitutes a strict interpretation of the Torah, is always in dispute, therefore there have always been groups within Orthodoxy who have rejected the validity of other groups generally considered Orthodox. As a result, modifiers such as Ultra, and Modern have been appended to Orthodox. These terms are intended to denote where a group stands in relation to others within Orthodoxy.


 * Ultra is used to denote that a group holds itself to a stricter interpretation than Orthodoxy requires.


 * Modern is used to denote that a group is generally Orthodox, but relaxes its adherence to Orthodoxy in certain ways.


 * Because many of those who are modern consider themselves Orthodox, the term Torah Judaism has gained currency to denote Orthodoxy that is not modern. This term carries with it the baggage of the dispute regarding what a strict interpretation of the Torah is.

I reverted to include the quote from Kaplan. FIRST, Ezra Wax, I believe (and I may be wrong but I am sure RK or Danny know for sure) Mordecai Kaplan received smicha. Second, just because he taught at JTS does not mean that he was wrong. Third, in the context of the article it is VERY clear that this is ONE view of Judaism, not "the only view" and not "the right view." The implication is that many Jews disagree. As a matter of fact, my understanding (again I would defer to RK or Danny) is that in the 19th century neither Reform nor Orthodix Jews took this view; both Reform and Orthodox Jews defined Judaism as a religion.

Ezra Wax, do not delete useful and informative content. I would have no objection to inserting into the article the useful and accurate information that some Jews have argued that Judaism is a religion. It would be fine to quote a couple of people; I would vote for SR Hirsch and maybe Stephen Wise or whoever would be a Reform equivalent. I also would not object to a section that elaborated on the debate over the nature of Judaism.

HOWEVER do not be anachronistic. There wasn't even a debate until the late 18th century or 19th century; before then Jews did not consider Judaism to be a religion, nor did Jews argue against that view, it just wasn't debated. If I am wrong provide me with the evidence, please. Slrubenstein


 * Mordecai Kaplan is condemned as a heretic in this bio. which I didn't write. Ezra Wax

And I will not change that bio (and I wouldn't even if you wrote it), as long as it specifies who called him a heretic. Many Jews have been called heretics by other Jews. It doesn't matter: the paragraph in question points out that many Jews see Judaism in terms other than religion (true) and it provides a nice illustrative quote from a Rabbi who was a leader for many Jews (true). That some people cinsidered him a heretic does not change this, nor does it change anything I wrote above. Interesting that you choose not to reply to any of the points I made above. Slrubenstein

Yes, Kaplan did receive smicha from Yeshiva University when it was still Yeshivat Yitzhak Elchanan, though it was one of two cases where the smicha was revoked (the other was Zalman Shalomi). Still, revoking smicha is pretty meaningless (as is smicha itself--the Chafetz Chaim did not have smicha till much later in life, but no one questions his halachic authority). Also, Kaplan was the founder of Reconstructionism, so calling him a Conservative rabbi is a misnomer. Ezra, in an NPOV environment, heretic is not an objective defintion of someone.

More importantly, for Slr, RK, 137, and other interested parties: this debate is getting old. There is no common point of reference here, and without that, you cannot even begin to discuss the issues. Despite all the pretences, the esential argument here is not over the definition of Judaism but on how knowledge is accumulated and developed. We are assuming that Ezra goes about learning and interpreting facts the same way we do, when in fact he does not. It is not a bad way that he uses, but it is foreign to us, so it is meaningless to impose our own logical structures on his arguments. Fact and polemic are indistinguishable, because fact has the purpose of serving polemic. It's not worth the energy arguing. Polemic is fact (geez, haven't you guys ever heard a mussar shmooze?). My suggestion is to drop it. Ezra will eventually give up. Danny


 * I agree with Danny. Ezra Wax is not interested in using logical reasoning. (He is probably capable of it, but chooses not to do so.) I don't want to debate Ezra; for now I just want to find a way for the Wikipedia moderators to agree that he needs to be put in check, probably by banning him. RK

When reading a NPOV article, nothing should jump out and bother you. An Orthodox Jew would find it disconcerting that a Rabbi condemned by Orthodoxy is quoted as an authority on Judaism, when the article pretends to be a neutral authority. Ezra Wax
 * hmmmm... Out of curiosity, how do you feel when you read the articles on Evolution, Natural Selection, and Species? In any event, you continue to miss the point.  The article does not not not NOT NOT present Mordecai Kaplan as "speaking for all of Judaism," or as being an "authority" in the sense you mean.  He is an authority in that he studied a lot, thought a lot, and a lot of people listened to him and found what he said worth listening to.  He is not an authority in the sense of papal infallability, you know, and no one claims that.  He "authoritatively" represents one important point of view within Judaism.  You know what, there are plenty of ultra-orthodox who I think are horrible Jews who defy God's will (although no Ultra Orthodox Jew would agree with me, in fact I am sure they would be offended -- my point is, they offend me).  But that doesn't matter: I recognize that they are Jews who have authority for some other Jews and I believe that whether I think they are awful destroyers of Judaism and God's creation or not, an NPOV encyclopedia must recognize that they represent an important segment of the Jewish people.  Yes, whatever I read by or about them will bother me and disconcert me.  But as long as the encyclopedia does not claim that these people are "right" in some objective sense, or that they are the sole representatives of the Jewish people or Judaism, I cannot object to their being mentioned in an encyclopedia.  And you have a right to expect Wikipedia to make clear that Kaplan represents "a" view of Judaism held by "some."  As it does. Slrubenstein

Generally, I have found books discussing Evolution unreadable.


 * maybe you should have gone to a better High School ;)

I even found the article in Encyclopedia Britannica unreadable, however, looking at the article here, it seems to do a good job of NPOV, probably due to fundamentalist Christians.

The point under dispute between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy is whether non-Orthodox denominations are legitimate inheritors of Jewish tradition. This article makes the assumption they are. That makes it non neutral, because each time a non-Orthodox view is quoted, it must be clear to the reader that it is only a legitimate view from the point of non-Orthodox Judaism. Ezra Wax


 * So you would also agree that each time an Orthodox view is quoted, it must be clear to the reader that it is only a legitimate view from the point of Orthodox Judaism (and that many non-Orthodox do not consider Orthodoxy to be the a legitimate inheritor of Jewish tradition)? Okay, if that is what you are saying that sounds reasonable.  Nevertheless, there are certain claims about Jews, Judaism and Jewish history that everyone would agree about -- we just need to be able to distinguish not only betwen Orthodox and non-Orthodox (i.e. in my opinion between the illegitimate and legitimate inheritors of Jewish tradition), and those views that are neither specifically Orthodox or non-Orthodox. Slrubenstein

Close. Non-Orthodox Jews agree that Orthodox Jews are legitimate inheritors of Judaism. They only criticize them for being too narrow in their views. They think that Orthodox Jews should permit wider views, and therefore consider their persecution of the broad views held by the non-Orthodox as unjust.


 * Absolutely wrong. I and many other non-Orthodox Jews consider the Orthodox movement to be an anti-traditional and modern religious movement that makes certain claims about Jewish tradition that are generally false (Although I do admit that there are some Orthodox Jews who, despite their distortion of Judaism in general, are good people and love God).  The claim that anyone is a "legitimate inheritor of Judaism" is a polemical claim.  If you want to claim that Orthodoxy is the legitimate heir to Jewish tradition, fine.  But in an encyclopedia article we must make clear that this is a controversial claim held by Orthodox Jews.  If you insist that the Conservative claim to be the heir to authentic Jewish tradition is a controversial claim held by Conservative Jews -- fine!  Slrubenstein


 * This sounds a lot like the debates in Christian circles about who has true apostolic succession, or who is most like the "early Church". Most neutral thing to do is put everyone's claims up side by side, and just be clear as to what who is saying or has said about whom. Wesley

- After going through this article, I saw that references were repeatedly made to what Reform or Orthodox or whatever variant of Judaism believes about something, but those variants weren't even formally introduced until the very end of the article. I felt that it made no sense to refer to them without at least introducing or defining them, so I moved that section from the very end to near the top. soulpatch

The question of validity is moot. Each group thinks that they are right and the others are wrong. That is why they each belong to their own particular groups. Danny

I would like to note that orthodox Judaism is not a movement and is simply defined as the most conservative form of Judaism. As such it means the same thing as traditional, while traditional has the connotation that it no longer applies, and of course this is not so in the opinion of the orthodox. Ezra Wax