Talk:Jews

Deletion of quotation about endurance of Judaism

User:JDiala has twice removed[1][2] a sourced quotation about the age of Judaism compared with that of any other modern faith. I thought this was a WP:1RR article (though now I don't see this indicated), so I self-reverted my second reversion. But JDiala's stated justification for the first removal was incorrect and for the second was irrelevant. Any thoughts? Largoplazo (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a sourced quotation, but it is from a poor source (a newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer, not a scholarly work). The poor quality of the source is already enough reason to exclude. But it is also very false. The quotation makes a set of very specific empirical claims, many of which are not true and others which are debatable. For instance, it claims that modern Jews speaks the same language as the Jews of 3,000 years ago. That is false. Modern Jews do not speak Old Hebrew. That is a distinct language from New Hebrew. They are not mutually intelligible. The quote says that Jews are the only nation to worship the same God as 3,000 years ago. That is also contentious at best, because although (as you note) the Hindu pantheon has evolved, they still worship many of the same deities as from the Rigveda period, like Agni. The quote says that Jews have the same name as 3,000 years ago. Yet the word Jew, derived from יְהוּדִי, only began to refer to the entire nation following the Babylonian exile, which was far earlier than 3,000 years ago, as our own article discusses in the "Name and etymology" section.

This is generally a good lesson for why scholarly sources are preferred over newspaper columnists. The latter are incentivized to make bombastic, propagandistic claims (as is happening here, the author is trying to push a certain propaganda narrative that Jews are older, and hence better able to preserve their culture and peoplehood, than everyone else) whereas the former are adept at nuanced, careful evaluations, which is what we want in an encyclopedia. JDiala (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Here you've made some good points, thanks. Based on those, I don't object to the deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Treating Biblical/Modern Hebrew as a binary leads only to confusion. Hebrew has continuously evolved for the last 3,000 years. The language of Job and that of Esther are far apart. The language of classical rabbinic texts ("Mishnaic Hebrew" and "Amoraic Hebrew") represents another massive shift, but a Modern speaker still struggles to read it unaided. However, the late medieval Hebrew (11th-14th centuries) of Maimonides, Rashi, etc. is largely intelligible to Modern-fluent religious Jews, with a familiar grammatical structure and vocabulary. This is why, despite the gigantic range of texts preserved from this period, and no shortage of scholars engaged in their study, no specialized dictionaries for the study of any historical Hebrew beyond the 6th century CE have ever been produced—resources designed for Modern Hebrew generally suffice. By the late 17th century, Hebrew literary style is already somewhat fixed, and even obscure works would still be accessible to a 21st-century reader. Of course huge quantities of vocabulary have been added in the last 300 years, some European loanwords have dropped out, etc. etc., but the pace of change is actually slow compared to many other languages. Such as English. Mishnaic Hebrew (c. 200 CE) is perhaps as far from 21st-century Hebrew as 14th-century English is to 21st-century English, or: significantly easier than Shakespeare. To find a Hebrew as difficult for modern readers as the English of Beowulf, you would have to look back to earliest Biblical poetry, perhaps 1,700 years further.

Can't speak to the comparative point generally, but Hinduism is no parallel. There is no continuous Hindu literature stretching back thousands of years; only with extensive modern scholarship can a historical narrative be reconstructed analytically, which will never be as specific or coherent, and does not exist within the tradition of Hinduism itself. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

On Hebrew: the point is that it's complicated. The quote doesn't delve into the complications. That's not acceptable. The reality is that an average Hebrew speaker today would not be able to speak to an Israelite 3,000 years ago. That's enough reason to be very cautious when including such simplistic statements. On Hinduism: putting aside that your claims are false and borderline offensive, and that you are not citing any sources ... the most problematic thing is that you are simply goalpost stretching. Krauthammer made a specific point that only Jews worship the same God as 3,000 years ago. That is false, as it is possible to exhibit specific Hindu Gods from the Rigvega period (1500-500 BCE) which remain in the Hindu pantheon. In fact, several of these Gods are likely derived from earlier proto-Indo-European Gods, so the real timeline could be as long as 5,000 years. Hinduism did of course change and evolve over the millennia, but Judaism did too particularly after the destruction of the temple and the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. The practices and beliefs of, say, modern reform Jews today would be alien and probably even offensive to the Israelites of 3,000 years ago. JDiala (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Hebrew exhibits a reasonably slow pace of change over the last 2,500 years. Literally no modern speaker of any language could speak to their ancestor of 2,500 years fluently. A Modern Hebrew speaker would understand far more of Hebrew 2,000 years ago than a modern English speaker could of English 1,000 years ago. The various forms of Hebrew used by 21st-century Jews (including Modern Hebrew) are the "same language" inasmuch as any historical dialect can be the "same language" as a modern version.

I haven't made any claim about theology. It is obviously not true that any denomination of Judaism holds the same tenets today as 3,000 years ago, or 2000 years ago. What constitutes a "same god" is a theological question, but I'm curious—how specifically can you define the Hindu pantheon, and still find 3,500 year parallels? To a specificity that the Jewish god wouldn't also qualify?

The point I was making is that Judaic tradition is continuous, not that it's unchanging. A 21st-century Orthodox Jewish schoolchild can name the major Judaic tradents from every century in the last 2,000 years and their works, and this list would be the same in every previous century, up to its own time. One would reach the same result by opening a modern Judaic ritual code and tracing its citations to the previous generation, and the one before that, etc. This is a genuinely interesting feature of a small religion! And one which is not paralleled in Hinduism. The history of Hinduism's development can certainly not be traced to any such level of detail through its own continuous canon, but only through academic rediscovery, and then still to a lesser extent. Something similar could be said of Christianity, but at the ~1,700 year mark Jews start to have the better claim. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that no one can speak to their ancestors from 3,000 years ago. That's precisely why Krauthammer's statement is misleading, because it could suggest otherwise for Jews. Most readers would associate "same language" with mutual intelligibility. It is also misleading because for the majority of Jewish history (the diaspora period) Hebrew was never a primary language. It was reintroduced in the modern era in a rather artificial way. The statement requires an asterisk at the very least.

Jews did have a "clearer" sense of their history than other peoples because they had a strong legalistic and citation culture. However, I do not think that the historical roots of other peoples can be discredited as being less legitimate simply because they had other modes of communicating their belief (like oral).

I certainly think that there are elements of truth to what you say, and there could be a way to communicate to the reader the story of Jewish continuity, which I don't disagree is in many ways unparalleled. But I don't think Krauthammer does this in a measured way. I would encourage you to propose your own wording if you are interested. I'd also recommend citing scholarly sources, since (as I mentioned above) Krauthammer is not a scholarly source. JDiala (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

“Most readers would associate "same language" with mutual intelligibility.”

I don’t believe that to be the case. For example, older versions of English are not intelligible to modern readers, but they’re still English. Drsmoo (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

With that said, I do agree that this quotation is not ideal, and a scholar of Jewish Studies would be better. Drsmoo (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

We should not be declaring in Wikivoice a statement by political commentator Charles Krauthammer that "The Israelite ancestry makes Jews..." whatever. I agree with JDiala that scholarly publications should always be used in preference to statements by newspaper columnists and TV commentators to cite as sources for historical or political commentary, and I don't think you'll find a genuine scholarly source that supports Krauthammer's declaration. Carlstak (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I also would have removed the quotation if I'd noticed it. Zero^talk 04:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we would need to do better than an opinion piece by Krauthammer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

1. Agni could be worshiped 3000 years ago. The quote does not say worship only. The quote gives combination of 4 points, worship and 3 more. This combination is what makes difference.

2. Hindu does not pass the point of name. No such ethnic group is recorded in the 2nd millennium BC. In the earliest Indian sources in the 1st millennium BC Sindhu means river (Indus). Derived from Sindhu, the Persian exonym Hindu appears in the reign of Darius who was born 6 centuries after Merneptah died and the Indians did not describe themselves as Hindu for two millennia longer.

3. Not the same language would be Yiddish. Hebrew is the same language whatever changes it underwent.

4. The word Jew, derived from יְהוּדִי, only began to refer to the entire nation following the Babylonian exile. The Israelite ancestry pre-dates that exile.

5. Krauthammer is not the best quality source but we have here another Journalist Anshel Pfeffer, Sheldon Gordon and Elan Ezrachi of forward.com, and an anonymous article by BBC. Why mass attack this time?Pseudopolybius (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think sources that are “not the best quality” should be maintained. If better sources can be used, use those instead. If not, the statement isn’t necessary for the article. Drsmoo (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of "Jewish gift to mankind" quote in Contributions section

" Due to the Jewish contribution to the Manhattan Project, the atomic bomb was labeled as a "Jewish gift to mankind." "

The quote is taken out of context and was originally written with irony.

Moreover, presenting it as if the bomb was labeled a "Jewish gift to mankind" based on a single blog post is misleading; the source is not enough to support such a generalization. The reijoweq (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. A more complete quote is "Inventions will come, of which one cannot even dream now, all from those smallest, most useful, most selfless particles of God’s world. And this is the new Jewish gift to mankind, the first gift since mankind exterminated six million Jews. So Jews take revenge." I agree that the little slice of this remarkable column isn't really helpful, and I've removed it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request : Jews were not the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity, there needs to be a mention of Samaritans in the "Name and etymology" that states this, for more historical accuracy.

Jews#Name and etymology: "After the Exile, the term Yehudi (Jew) was used for all followers of Judaism because the survivors of the Exile (who were the former residents of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites that had kept their distinct identity as the ten tribes from the northern Kingdom of Israel had been scattered and assimilated into other populations."

But this is not entirely correct as Samaritans, a very closely related people but today number very few ( less than a 1000) due to historical persecution and forced conversions, also kept their distinct identity as descendants of the Israelites. Jews and Samaritans were the only two groups to do so. There are a lot of sources and content in the Samaritans page corroborating this. Could an editor please work on this for a little more historical accuracy? I am also not sure what would be the best way to clarify this in that section. Thank you. Theofunny (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)