Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 June 26

= June 26 =

Abrahamic Faiths
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all find their roots in Abraham with Christianity branching off from Judaism and Islam branching off from both. My question is why the reference is only "Judeo-Christian" (showing the connection between the two) and not "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" when all three find their roots in Abraham? 216.223.104.13 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you find any valid sources that use that term? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the OP is asking why it isn't used. My understanding is that the term is used by western writers to reflect Jewish influence on Christianity, whereas Islam has had little influence on Christian theology, despite important influence in other areas. The term "Judeo-Christian" is itself contentious; see What does the term "Judeo-Christian" actually mean?. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It means something to Christians. To the average Jew, it's probably kind of insulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed - see the linked article. Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Abrahamic is less clunky. When no shorter term exists double hyphens can occur like Marxist-Leninist-Maoist when emphasizing the influence of all 3 in Maoism. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also unambiguous. The three can argue all they want about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of their particular chosen faith. But Abrahamic covers it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "So let it be written. So let it be done". --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Judeo-Christian tradition" is a more common collocation than "Abrahamic tradition", which may partly be due to its use as a dog whistle. But "Abrahamic faiths" is much more common than "Judeo-Christian faiths". --Lambiam 08:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Most people who talk about "Judeo-Christian tradition" etc are white nationalists, hence it is very important not to include Islam. Fgf10 (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What is your source for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that's true in at least parts of the world but in lots of the U.S. I don't know if whites who talk about "Judeo-Christian tradition" and "traditional family values" and stuff are more likely to be white nationalists or just someone who's really square. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On Newspapers.com (pay site), the first reference I found to "Judeo-Christian" was in 1883, in a Scottish newspaper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I never assumed the term "Judeo-Christian" was American or not old. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. It was Fgf who made an unsupported claim, and of course he has no source other than personal opinion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

See People of the Book DOR (HK) (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

along the lines of Alansplodge's link but points to Ferdinand Christian Baur as coining in 1831. Should be able to find what he meant by the term. fiveby(zero) 18:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * chapter 11 "The Judeo-Christian Tradition's Five Others" by Warren Zev Harvey has the "Judeo-Christo-Islamic" tradition as #5.
 * hey, there there used to be an article!
 * wikt:Judeo-Christo-Islamic

Judeo-Christian is a loaded term that's used by American right-wingers who are Christian but semi-okay with Jewish people. (American protestants have a complex relationship with Judaism.) It is not a meaningful term. It is meant to be a shield against seeing been exclusively Christian nationalist. And it's meant to emphasize a supposed 'long arc of history' that goes from the Jews to the Christians to the Americans. The term is almost exclusively used by charlatans and jerks who are trying to mask their belief in white-Christian-American hegemony. It is not a real thing. It's a political device. It's a reframing tool. It's just a term to wrap bigots up in a veneer of of inclusivity and plausible deniability. I will not provide a source, because this is sky-is-blue territory. Temerarius (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe because there is no source. I heard the term long before that "nationalist" stuff was a thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That may be the case in the contemporary USA, Temerarius, but my experience as an aging Brit is that it has long been used in Europe, by respectable historians and theologians, as a perfectly neutral reference to the common religious culture underlying more than a thousand years of Western European history. I have frequently read and heard it used in serious and scholarly discussions in newspapers and on Radio and TV. If it has latterly been taken up by right-wing white nationalists, who over here here are a small and generally derided lunatic-fringe minority, the fact has escaped my attention. In general, we should not allow bigots to hijack well-established hitherto respectable words or items, just as we did not allow the likes of National Front to claim the Union Flag as their own back in the 1970s and '80s.
 * [Disclaimer: I myself have social and family links to both traditions, but practice neither.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.20 (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the American right-wingers I'm familiar with wouldn't know how to say or spell "Judeo-". And aren't very keen on Jews, anyway.--Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)