Talk:Origins of Judaism/Archive 1

Problems with article
I consider this article highly problematic. For starts, it is wrong to start by saying that the major debate is between the traditional and the critical view. This is one debate, and for some people it may well be the most important or even only debate. But such is a view, just one view. There are other debates. There is a "debate" between Kaufman and Wellhausen over the sequence of sources (JEDP or JEPD) that is tied up with a debate over the essense of Israelite religion. There is a debate about the relative influence of Egyptian versus Mesopotamian religion on Israelite religion. There is a debate about the differences and continuities between Israelite and Rabbinic religion. And this article does not give any detail about any of these debates, nor any context for understanding these debates. Far from informing a general audience about what we do and do not know about the origins of judaism, this article is at best a little misleading. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW the "critical view" suggests the possibility that monotheism was originally not part of Judaism, based on the fact that a few inscriptions mention "Jehovah and his Asherah". The conclusion is that the authors of those inscriptions were familiar with at least two different gods. However the first biblical book of Kings (ch. 18,19) says that in Israel there were about four hundred prophets of Asherah (hence the inscriptions) and of other gods like Baal, but they are depicted as apostates. -- Ren, 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.98.50.219 (talk)
 * Have you considered the possibility that it was the author of the Book of Kings who was the apostate? I agree with SLRubinstein that the article is inadequate - the usual current approach is to treat Judaism as passing htrough a number of formative stages, from earliest Canaanite origins, to the impact of Assyrian terminology on the 8th centiru prophets, to the reform movements of the late Iron Age, to the triumph of a particular Deuteronomistic sect in the Exilic and early post-Exilic period, to later developments in Hellenistic times, to further developments in post-Roman times. Far more complex a picture than this article seems to recognise.PiCo (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a start. I agree it needs a complete rewrite arranged chronologically. Distinguish pre-exilic, exilic, Second Temple and Rabbinical. The "Origins of Judaism" may be found in any of these periods depending on your perspective. We have full articles on each of these periods, so it's really just about compiling WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 06:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism has always been monotheistic. A religion that had originally had two gods would not reform itself entirely. The memory of such a belief would be ever present in the mindset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

it's a question of definition. Usually, "Judaism" is not used for times predating the 5th century BC. So yes, Judaism for the entire duration of its existence since the 5th century BC has been monotheistic. But of course the "origins" discussion concerns periods predating the Babylonian captivity. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear location
The article has the phrase "was probably developed in south of the Levantine region." Which should it really be: Someone in the know please change the article. WikiParker (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * was probably developed in the south of the Levantine region
 * was probably developed south of the Levantine region

Also, "was developed" is used of a device or technology, as it were "to develop" transitively expressing purposeful design by known developers. Of traditions it is more common to say "did develop", intransitively. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Substantial rewrite
Is what it needed.

Origins of Judaism, the religion, suggest discussion of the source of religion and any changes it underwent that form the base of religious practice as is found currently.

It is not discussion of Jewish history, but the history of Jewish religious practice, which has little to do with possible external influences, comparison with Christianity, or academic opinions on archaeological finds.

As always I'd be happy to hear from anyone who wants to contribute to expanding this article while I do so in the near future. Any editing will have to be accompanied by reliable sources.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help. Drop a note on my talk page. PiCo (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Needs substantial rewrite
It appears this article is presenting a lot of highly debated historical facts and dates as accurate, based more on old biblical history as opposed to true evidence. Such as the existence of Solomon or a pre exilic mass converstion to monotheism. There is little mention of Zoroastrian syncretism which is widely suggested by many authors and in analysis of the bible itself. There is little consensus among modern scholars and that isn't reflected. Also, I think a statement about the inherent confirmation bias that would come with the study of ancient religion by mostly modern adherents to its mythology should be addressed somehow. Nearly every article on wikipedia about this subject seems to suffer from either bad/dated science or even an effort from believers to hijack the narratives and rewrite history to fit with the claims Judaism is the first monotheistic religion and doesn't have influence from the old Persian faith that the imperial rulers of Israel held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.215.234 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cite sources!
Many of the assertions in this article, while plausible-sounding, cite no sources! Should someone go through and add "cite needed" everywhere? 69.122.106.29 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The first image
..in the article needs to go. It's so extremely un-encyclopedic, it's painful. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias
This article is extremely biased citing the minimalistic position as fact, it comes of very anti semetic. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes going back to the earlier form of the article, stating the traditional view, and the minimalist view, both as cited opinion, and let the reader decide. Wikipedia should does this more when it comes to religion. 83.128.72.82 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, posting first and formost the evidence isn't anti Semitic, it's logical. Although mentioning the traditional view wouldn't hurt. Guy355 (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

United Monarchy
This article presents the existence of a United Monarchy as fact, even though modern scholarship very much doubts it. I'd hedge it, but that would seem to break the whole following argument. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

List of founders of religious traditions‎‎
Those interested in joining a discussion whether to add Judaism (Founder: Israelites) to this list, please see Talk:List_of_founders_of_religious_traditions. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations only list names of authors
There should be dates, article name, and publisher. The citations could not be verified. 2604:CA00:16C:1977:0:0:666:24C7 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Mendes-Flohr 2005
'Mendes-Flohr 2005' is mentioned only in the citations but not in the bibliography, leaving it unclear what is being referred to here. 45.93.75.130 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)