Talk:Modern Jewish historiography/Archives/2023/October

Ideas for reading and research
Andre🚐 22:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An obvious early one to slot in is Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus.
 * Amos Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History
 * Leora Batnitzky, How Judaism Became a Religion
 * Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni, eds., Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion
 * Martin Goodman, Jeremy Cohen, and David Sorkin, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies
 * David Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition
 * Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E.
 * Eyal Ben-Eliyahu, Yehudah Cohn, and Fergus Millar, eds., Handbook of Jewish Literature from Late Antiquity, 135-700
 * Jeremy Cohen, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity
 * Jonathan Ray, After Expulsion: 1492 and the Making of Sephardic Jewry
 * David N. Ruderman, Early Modern Jewry: A New Cultural History
 * Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern, The Golden Age Shtetl: A New History of Jewish Life in East Europe
 * Adam S. Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy: Orthodoxy, Nonobservance, and the Emergence of Modern Jewish Identity
 * Hasia Diner, The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, Roads Taken: The Great Jewish Migrations to the New World and the Peddlers Who Forged the Way
 * Jonathan Sarna, American Judaism: A History
 * Georges Bensoussan, Jews in Arab Countries: The Great Uprooting


 * Hi thank you very much for this - I have added some of these in. I think the sources now in the bibliography are the best ones focused specifically on wide-view Jewish historiographies. My confidence in that statement is helped by the sources in the section "Studies of Jewish historiography" which describe the most significant works in this meta-field, at least up until the dates of the sources in that section (2006-07). Onceinawhile (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the work by Batnitzky might be a good counterpoint to Shlomo Sand. Is Judaism a religion, a culture, a nationality—or a mixture of all of these? In How Judaism Became a Religion, Leora Batnitzky boldly argues that this question more than any other has driven modern Jewish thought since the eighteenth century. This wide-ranging and lucid introduction tells the story of how Judaism came to be defined as a religion in the modern period... the book discusses many of the major Jewish thinkers of the past three centuries, including Moses Mendelssohn, Abraham Geiger, Hermann Cohen, Martin Buber, Zvi Yehuda Kook, Theodor Herzl, and Mordecai Kaplan. At the same time, it tells the story of modern orthodoxy, the German-Jewish renaissance, Jewish religion after the Holocaust, the emergence of the Jewish individual, the birth of Jewish nationalism, and Jewish religion in America. Andre🚐 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This article currently doesn’t use Sand. It probably should in some form. Batnitzky’s thought provoking work is not a counterpoint to Sand; there is no contradiction at the core, because she also believes - from a different angle - that modern nationalism significantly changed what it means to be a Jew. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Judaism predates religion. The concept of religion, is not that old, relatively. Drsmoo (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is one of the points made by Batnitzky. Andre🚐 19:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is the central point in her book. Of course the pre-modern all-encompassing “Jewish life” that she describes is quite right when considered in discrete regions (her book is very European-focused). In practice it is not possible to draw meaningful threads through the worldwide pre-modern Jewish communities without giving a name to the commonalities they shared - since books / manuscripts were the only long-distance media of the time, these commonalities were the Bible and Rabbinic books.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think her point is that for many people, especially poor and pre-modern, "Jewish" was the answer to every meaningful question of political, economic, social, cultural, etc., and "religion" wasn't a separate thing, whereas at some point, there arose a tension between assimilating into secular society, and one's religious life or obligations. Today, most people just have a religion as an afterthought, like a sports team that they are a fan of or something, but for most people in history, it was pretty all-consuming. Which is why I really think that Jewish identity is something that existed in a very well-defined way long before either the establishment of Israel or the Holocaust, and sure those two events are quite significant, but not defining. Andre🚐 20:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Of course, as Batnitzky explains, pre-modern local Jewish communal identities were very different to what we conceive Jewish identity to be today. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but there were many similarities as well. Sholem Aleichem published his first stories in Yiddish in 1883. That is where Fiddler on the Roof comes from, which was recently performed on-and-off-Broadway in NYC in Yiddish and English. That is Jewish identity, and nothing to do with nationalism and Zionism - in fact predates Zionism and survives authentically today. Andre🚐 23:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite right. That is Russian-Jewish or Ashkenazi-Jewish identity or Yiddish identity. Different although related to the old German-Jewish identity, and very different from the old Yemeni-Jewish or Baghdadi-Jewish identity. The Saint Thomas Christians have a unique religio-cultural identity too, but it cannot be accurately extrapolated to the that of all Christians worldwide. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The major splits are Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi, but we know there are specific shared things amongst those 3. Fiddler on the Roof and Sholem Aleichem and Yiddish culture and language are part of the shared heritage of the majority of the world's Jews (the majority of whom are Ashkenazi) and the majority of American Jews. It's not just a unique splinter identity, it's the core of Jewish identity. There are differences between German and Russian Jews, but both would share Yiddish culture and heritage. Andre🚐 14:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Many Sephardi, Mizrahi and other Jews would consider the statement that [Ashkenazi identity is] the core of Jewish identity to be offensive. I assume you did not intend it as such.
 * Your underlying point is important though. The vast majority of writings about the rise of modern Jewish identity and modern Jewish historiography are in fact talking exclusively about the Ashkenazi experience. This needs to be made clear for our readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an offensive statement, it's just an observation; the fact is that Ashkenazi Jews are numerically the majority of Jews and the most recognizable, prominent group, just like Roman Catholics are a particularly recognizable group of Christians. That is why many sources, especially those focusing in the US/Canada/UK/France/Argentina diaspora Jews from the major waves of migration, focus exclusively on Ashkenazi Jews. It's true that for other Jews such as Sephardic or Mizrahi or Ethiopian, they wouldn't speak Yiddish, instead speaking Amharic, Arabic or Ladino etc., and they have differences in their cuisine, literature, liturgy, music, etc., but there are a lot of commonalities as well. My point was that Sholem Aleichem and Fiddler on the Roof are universally recognizable avatars of Jewish culture. Yes, they focus on a specific Jewish story that is specific to Ashkenazi Jews. But we also know now that many Ashkenazi Jewish families were from Sephardic and Mizrahi background further back into history. There are also a lot of commonalities and parallels between the pogroms and the exit from the Pale, to the earlier expulsions experienced by the Sephardim and the earlier exiles and conflicts. Andre🚐 20:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Imagine writing "White identity is the core of American identity". How does that sound to you?
 * Your last sentence is at the core of this article. Modern scholars worked to thread the stories together to create a unified narrative. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, look, I mean, how I'd modify the statement is that the interplay between early white Americans, the native Americans, and black American slaves, was at the core of each of those stories and experiences, and that race is critical to American history. It's certainly true that being British and French, and the interaction with British and French culture, language, literature, art, philosophy, etc., was critical to the American Revolution and the early post-colonial period. It's also the case that Native Americans had a huge impact on early American history, an even larger impact is lost to time and historical records which by their nature are written as they are with the deficiencies they have from being contemporary.
 * The point is that for most Jewish people, they were the "other" wherever they were - Hellenistic Jews, or Sephardic, Ashkenazi, or Mizrahi, so it's a parallel to a same or similar story. Ashkenazi Jews are not the "white" Jews any more than Sephardic Jews are the "Spanish" Jews or Mizrahi Jews are "Arab" Jews. They are all Jews that just translated and reconciled a fundamentally Jewish substrate into different environments, yet they share many of the same characteristics and aspects. It's one story and it wasn't weaved together simply by modern scholars, it's the case that, according to historians and confirmed by DNA research, Sephardic Jews aren't just Spanish people with a Jewish religion while Ashkenazi Jews are Poles or Slavs with a Jewish religion. In fact, many Ashkenazi and Mizrahi communities welcomed Sephardic Jews after their expulsion.
 * It's not wrong to talk about white working class voters in the Rust Belt, and it's not wrong to talk about the Borscht Belt. It's "Jewish ethnic identity most readily recognized by North Americans." Yes, that's a part of Jewish identity, a very prominent part in popular culture such as film and entertainment. So I don't think Sephardic Jews would look at that and say, "that's white privilege" or anything like that- they'd see Jews on TV. That's us. That's our brothers/cousins/us. Andre🚐 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that Yiddish is universally representative of Judaism or relatable to all Jews. Especially in 2023. I also don’t agree that “Modern scholars worked to thread the stories together to create a unified narrative.” This is basically claiming that Jewish history is manufactured (“worked to create”), which I would expect more Jews from across multiple backgrounds to be bothered by than claiming Yiddish is a common standard.
 * Along the same lines, this article misrepresented a source by falsely attributing a statement that claimed all early modern histories of Judaism conceived of it as a religion. This is counter to the source, which presents conceptions of Judaism as essentially a religion to be a way by which Jews attempted to fit into European societies. “Envisaging Jewish identity as essentially religious” Envisaging means Judaism is not essentially  religious, but they formed that conception. Drsmoo (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I wasn't trying to say that every Jew speaks Yiddish or relates to Yiddish, but surely most English-speaking Jews, regardless of their specific community or background within the wider world of Jewish divisions, will be pretty familiar with some or most of bagel, schlep, kvetch, maven, spiel, schmear, oy gevalt. Probably moreso than even those who know more than a few words of Modern Hebrew, which most American Jews don't know at all. Andre🚐 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, Basnage describes Jews as both a religion and a nation in what seems to be equal measure, as does Spinoza. I haven’t found an English translation of Jost yet. Drsmoo (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which period of Jewish history are Basnage and Spinoza covering when they use that description? A quote would be helpful. If they are covering the modern period that would be counter to modern scholarship’s interpretations so would be very odd. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They are writing in their present tense. I can provide quotes if you’d really like, but this is not hard to verify. Drsmoo (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Myers, 2018, page 26: "What becomes clear is that the rationale for this expansive history lay not in Basnage’s intrinsic interest in the history of the Jews. The aim, he explained, was unmistakable: “We ought to have a clearer Knowledge of a Nation, to whom we have succeeded, and that shall be one day united with the Christian Church.” In other words, he wrote his history of the Jews as a means of demonstrating that Christianity had superseded Judaism and thus could liberate Christians—and, he hoped, Jews as well—from the ignominious Jewish past of theological error, ritual excess, and moral corruption to a state of salvation."
 * The parallel with the concept of a “Christian Nation” makes it clear that Basange uses the term in a religious sense, not a racial or ethnic sense.
 * Hence the conclusion of all the scholars. A good example of the importance of using secondary sources to interpret primary sources where possible. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is your original research and dot connecting. Drsmoo (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I look forward to discussing further once you have read the scholarly sources which I added to the bibliography of this article, or any others of equivalent quality that you are able to bring. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Not only is your conclusion original research, but your paraphrase that all early historiographies of Jews treated them as a religion is both self-evidently wrong, and a misrepresentation of the cited source. I do suggest you read How Judaism became a Religion as well. It is written by one of the foremost experts on Jewish studies in the world today and can help clarify any confusion you may have. Drsmoo (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tone down the hyperbole. Our conversations rarely make progress unless and until you follow suit and bring specific quotes to support your assertions. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not brought specific quotes, so asking me to “follow suit” and bring quotes makes no sense. Drsmoo (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which statement do you consider hyperbole? Drsmoo (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See Myers above. Or the many quotes in the article that I added. You have brought no sources and no quotes, just criticism. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That has already been discussed. Your interpretation of Myers is not a reliable source. Myers does not claim that nation means religion. That is your claim, not his. Similarly, no source provided makes the claim that all early modern histories of the Jewish people portrayed Judaism as exclusively a religion. Drsmoo (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, you wrote “the parallel with the concept of a “Christian Nation’”. But that parallel is not made. You put “Christian Nation” in quotes, but that phrase is not found once in Meyers. Meyers states that Basnage’s goal was that the Jewish Nation would be United with the Christian Church. Drsmoo (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Meyers does say that, and Segal, p.306, says: [Basnage] uses the term "Nation" to depict Jewish society since the end of the Judaean commonwealth in Roman times, as essentially a religious community, not a polity. Please could you read the sources in the article before continuing this discussion further. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Link to the Segal source and the relevant quote from, I guess you mean Myers, please. Drsmoo (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Found it, that selection was missing some crucial information from the same paragraph:
 * “For Basnage the historian, in other words, there has been a continuing Jewish civilization and society since first-century antiquity which by no means defies historical treatment — irrespective of what Basnage the theologian may conceive to be the eventual religious disposition of this
 * anomolous people in dispersion.“ Drsmoo (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading the source and now confirming my point. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your point was that throughout the book Basnage refers to Judaism as a nation, which is meant as both a civilization and a society? And that religion had a different meaning in those days? For example, it is a mainstream view that Judaism wasn’t considered a religion in the Protestant sense until Moses Mendelssohn, who was born over 30 years after Basnage died. Drsmoo (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a quote from a source that supports the claim in your final sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * “Mendelssohn gives voice to the claim that I will be exploring throughout this book: that Judaism is a religion. In fact, he invents the modern idea that Judaism is a religion…In characterizing Judaism as a religion, Mendelssohn is aware of and actually emphasizes the implicit problems that follow from trying to define it thus in a German Protestant vein. Indeed, far from simply assimilating Judaism into an alien category, Mendelssohn’s attempt to define Judaism within the modern Protestant category of religion brings with it not-so-subtle criticisms of this very category.” -
 * How Judaism Became a Religion: An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thought by Leora Batnitzky Drsmoo (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah no, sorry, I meant a source which explicitly confirms that this is "a mainstream view". Onceinawhile (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The author is one of the preeminent experts on Jewish studies in the world and describes it as a fact. I have not seen any sources disputing it. Drsmoo (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. And it seems that you have not found anyone else confirming it either. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a view of Jewish historiography that belongs in the article, as I opined above. Andre🚐 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection, but obviously needs in-line attribution. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Mendelssohn replied to his detractors by redefining what constituted Jewish law. Hinting at both Cranz's and Spinoza's extreme positions, he attached those who sought to "pigeonhole" Judaism into one of two categories: a Protestant version of "religion" or a state-based concept of a "nation." On the one hand, Spinoza insisted that Mosaic Law as a coercively enforced constitution rendered judaism a political identity. On the other hand, Cranz and Morschel insisted that if Judaism was not a political entity but taught principles of morality and charity, then it was not different from Christianity or Deism.  Judaism, asserted Mendelssohn , was neither a form of Protestant Christianity/Deism nor a nation without a state. Rather, it was a religion (pace Spinoza), but it was on a non-coercive code of (ceremonial) law." 
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Cambridge_Companion_to_Judaism_and_L/RdccDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA226&printsec=frontcover
 * "They both want an end to a medieval order where the state is a Christian state and the Jew is an eternal outsider. Mendelssohn's prescription for a disestablishmentarian state is as radical as Spinoza's. And the price that he is willing to pay remains high. Judaism is to become a confession, a religion construed along Protestant lines, shorn of its political basis in theocracy, commonwealth, and republic."
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_Jewish_Ethics/RqpTESjofdAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA172&printsec=frontcover
 * The crux of the debates was about whether Judaism was compatible with reason/enlightenment, and that because Judaism had its own laws/society (most Jews lived in their own enclaves), Jews could become citizens of a modern enlightened country. Presenting it as if Judaism was just viewed as a "religion" in pre-modern times is simply inaccurate. The modern concept of religion as simply one part of an individual's life hadn't been developed yet, and certainly wasn't applied to Jews. Drsmoo (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since there's much talk about Yerushalmi, he has quite a relevant quote about this subject as well:
 * "But how can the Jews be considered a nation? Today, outside Israel, it is not easily apparent and many diaspora Jews would deny it outright, or use the softer term “the Jewish people.” But from ancient times until the French Revolution Jews were conscious of themselves as a nation, a nation dispersed in exile, and were viewed as such by the non Jewish world as well. Striking proof of this can be found in the grand debate on Jewish emancipation itself, as it was first voiced in France in the revolutionary National Assembly. Both those in favor of granting citizenship and equal rights to the Jews in the new nation-state that was in the process of being born, as well as those opposed, agreed that the Jews have at least hitherto been a nation. Mere ethnicity was not the issue in this truly defining moment. On December 23, 1789, Count Stanislas de Clermont Tonnere, one of the prime advocates of Jewish citizenship declared: “Everything must be refused to the Jews as a nation. Everything must be given to them as individuals. They must become citizens. It is thought that they do not want to be such. Let them say it and let them be banished. There cannot be a nation within a nation. . . .”21 To which the Abb. Jean Siffrein Maury, a conservative opponent of Jewish emancipation responded: “I observe to begin with that the word Jew is not the name of a [religious] sect, but of a nation that has its laws which it has always followed and which it still wants to follow. To call the Jews citizens would be as if one said that, without letters of naturalization and without ceasing to be English and Danes, the English and Danes could become French.”22 The seemingly anomalous persistence of a Jewish national self-consciousness for almost two millennia following the loss of its state is a fact that, rather than be dismissed, should elicit astonishment and creatively challenge any conventional definition of what constitutes a nation.23 But even if the continued national character of the Jews in dispersion be granted, is continuous residence in a land since antiquity a necessary criterion for claiming sovereignty over it? To insist on this would be to ignore the role of migrations and conquests in history, to create a test that even European nations could not pass, let alone those of the Western Hemisphere. In the Jewish case the essential point lies elsewhere, in the myriad ways through which Jews everywhere until modern times fused their collective memory and collective hope and focused both on what they continued to regard as their true home. This was so even though Jewish life in the Middle Ages was far from being merely a vale of tears and Jews were often very attached to the lands in which they lived.24" Drsmoo (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - haven't read, but adding this one to my own list. More:
 * [06:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)]
 * - talks about the Jewish world at large Andre🚐 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * [06:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)]
 * - talks about the Jewish world at large Andre🚐 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's another one: Andre🚐 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Definition
Saw this at DYK. The very first line is striking: Jewish historiography is the scholarly analysis of Jewish history in modern times. That does not seem like a good definition of "Jewish historiography". It precludes the existence of Jewish historiography before modern times. Srnec (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Good point. As I mentioned earlier, Jewish historiography really begins with Josephus. Andre🚐 21:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the core sources focus on modern times, so the article focuses on modern times. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The title does not describe the focus. Modern Jewish historiography is available. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Andre🚐 22:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Mobility characterized Jewry; transnational : Ruderman
Great cite along with some of the ones I was dumping in the first section (pan-Judaism, etc) that I just came across while reading  :  Mobility characterized early modern Jewry, a transnational approach. I already included this one in the list above, actually. But it's very relevant to what I'm reading now trying to track down this Gans stuff. So Gans actually interacts with Kepler and Brahe. Looking for a better source. Andre🚐 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)