Talk:Jewish denominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal

Jewish denominations is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do:

1
2 Movements v. Denominations
3 "however"
4 Population statistics?
5 Proposal:move Reconstructionist to the Alternative Judaism page
6 Messianic Judaism
7 Removed Secular Humanistic
8 Development of modern "denominations"
9 Response to Haskalah or Jewish Enlightenment
10 Reconstructionist movement
11 "Founded in America" ?

[edit]

Can someone do something about United and Federation Judaism in the UK (2 major branched of orthodox judaism here)

Those aren't Jewish denominations, but rather different Orthodox groups. Jayjg 02:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Movements v. Denominations

I object to the use of "denominations" ... I propose we use the term used in the Jewish community itself "movements" ... "Denomination" is a Christian construct and we should respect the Jewish etymology of movements. --Jon Cates 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "however"

"Some Jews felt that Enlightenment values, especially the incorporation of secular subjects into Jewish education, as well increased integration with the outside world, would bring much to Judaism. Others, however, noted that this same era allowed Jews, for the first time, the ability to easily assimilate into Christian society"

Either we take out "however", or we strengthen "allowed". As for my rephrase...well, the whole passage is weak. But I have a writer's tic against these sorts of passages... --VKokielov 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why must however be taken out, or allowed be strengthened? Could you explain please? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the word "however" juxtaposes the second sentence to the first, so it seems to me it doesn't go well with "allowed", because then why do we have "however" at all?

Some Jews felt the Enlightenment would have good effects, others felt it would have bad effects. I'm still not sure why this needs to change. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is when I have to stop, look myself over, and bite my lip. I understand now it's a question of taste and, even more, quality - an argument between the writers of an encyclopedia and someone else altogether...See, if I were writing about the Jews who "howevered" the Enlightenment, I wouldn't write about them this way. It captures nothing of their sentiment; it's dry, airless. But...this is an encyclopedia. You win. :D --VKokielov 20:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A footnote: to capture the sentiment artfully doesn't require taking a point of view. I think they call it the "third-person omniscient", that classical writer's tool. No good novelist to write this way has ever allowed himself to take a side; but no great novelist has ever written like in an encyclopedia. --VKokielov 20:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population statistics?

I was wondering if there was a percentage breakdown of different denominations available? I've hunted around and can't find a comparison of population figures of different denominations, especially world-wide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djbell (talk • contribs) .

The idea of "denominations" is primarily a construct of certain elements of the Ashkenazi community, as the article lays out rather clearly. While non-Ashkenazim may be part of congregations adhering to some "denomination", however, most non-Ashkenazim, especially outside the US, do not. The concept of "denominations" therefore, is not a universal in Judaism and it is consequently impossible to come up with the kind of statistics one might be able to for Christianity or Islam. :-\ Tom e r ^talk 14:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, this article itself is pointless. But evidently some people do find it useful to think of the issue in these terms. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask for this very thing. Knowing that 20% of Jewish people follow the Orthodox tradition would be very informative. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The population statistics here are not correct. More importantly, they do not really reflect the fact that such terms as Ashkenazi and Sephardic have dual meanings, as (historic) ethnic divisions and as religious minhagim. I think a better approach on this page would be to duck the issue, by referring the reader to main articles on other pages. If nobody objects after a month or so, I will rewrite this page to reflect that. --Metzenberg 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal:move Reconstructionist to the Alternative Judaism page

Reconstructionist Judaism does not adhere to Traditional Jewish principles any more than Pagan Judaism or Messianic Judaism. It should be moved from here to the Aternative judaism page .

I recommend taking it up at WP:JEW... Tom e r ^talk 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic Judaism

We see repeated attempts to add Messianics in all articles related to Judaism. Here, User:ChristTrekker is making such effort. "Messianic Jewish organizations, such as Jews for Jesus, often refer to their faith as fulfilled Judaism, in that they believe Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. Although Messianic Judaism claims to be Jewish, and many adherents observe Jewish holidays, most Jews regard Messianic Judaism as deceptive at best, fraudulent at worst. They charge that Messianic Judaism is actually Christianity presenting itself as Judaism." (Balmer, Randall. Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Baylor University Press, Nov 2004, p. 448). More quotes per request. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing MJ references from this article is not NPOV. Whether it objectively is, or whether most Jews think it is, "true Judaism" or not is beside the point. Someone wanting to learn how this sect fits into the grand scheme of Judaism as a whole would, quite reasonably, expect it to be found on a page detailing Jewish denominations. The fact is that MJ claims to be a type of Judaism, and thus should be listed on in an article that exists to list the types of Judaism! Especially when the controversial entry makes the point of noting the controversy! It's not like like there's a subversive agenda of disinformation at work (at least on behalf of the MJ faction). Continued wholesale removal of MJ references is blatant bias. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether MJs think they are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Remember, no original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We exist to distribute content that is verifiable. MJ is not a verifiable movement of Judaism and therefore has no place in articles about that subject. It is, however, a verifiable denomination of Christianity and has a real place in those articles. Let's say I'm a Pastafarian and I say Pastafarianism is a denomination of Buddhism. Just because I say it doesn't make it true and doesn't make it verifiable. While we evaluate each case on an individual basis, the criteria for inclusion into the Wikipedia are objective in nature. MJ is not, by any metric, a form of Judaism and therefore should not be considered thus for the purposes of the Wikipedia. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Karimarie is correct. MJ's claims belong on the page Messianic Judaism, but what they claim is not a good enough reason to list them here. Please review WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I can imagine someone with user name HeavensGateTrekker adding Heaven's Gate (cult) here if that sect claimed to be a denomination of Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure those views will be presented on Messianic Judaism. But how is the ignorant reader supposed to find that page if certain logical startings points (like this one) suppress attempts to link to it? The entry here is not attempting to promote MJ or undermine other branches of Judaism. It merely seeks validation of its existence. I'm not asking for undue weight—not much more than a single-line entry with a link! If you want to talk about undue weight, look at samaritan, which asserts there are less than 1000 now. The entry here even says "sometimes not regarded as Jews". Is that not analogous to MJ? ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If some group like HG did claim to be a part of Judaism, and were legitimate enough to be taken seriously at all by the average joe, then by all means they should be listed here, if for no other reason than to state that their claims are rejected by most of the mainstream. Just FYI, the Christian denominations article does exactly this for groups outside what is generally regarded mainsteam (e.g. Latter Day Saints)—it doesn't censor them altogether. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not verifiable possibly because the rest of Judaism refuses to "verify" it based on political reasons? Historically, Judaism is a messianic religion. How can you exclude a group that claims to have found the awaited messiah? But that's beside the point. The fact is, this is not an issue of soapboxing—I'm not trying to "preach" messianicalism (or whatever you'd call it). I'm merely trying to advocate fairness. Any other nonstandard practice could crop up in Judaism, gain enough followers to be considered a "movement", and it would be listed here. Yet there are allegedly 50k Jews that believe Yeshua is messiah, and it is treated differently. Articles like this are the perfect place to discuss relationships between segments of the Jewish community—including those groups that perhaps a majority would consider heretical. In fact, it does so already, with regards to the Orthodox view of others. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not insert a link to MJ in every WP article, to help an "ignorant reader"? Seriously, your problem is not with WP, but with Judaism, a classic ancient system of belief based on its authoritative texts. May I respectfully suggest you do your Christ trekking someplace else. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't address my points, so you act ridiculously and tell me to go away. That's productive. How am I supposed to take you seriously? ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ChristTrekker, there are Jews who believe all kinds of things that aren't Judaism, since not all Jews follow Judaism. And none of it would belong in an article on Jewish denominations. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And according to the Orthodox, Reform Jews aren't following Judaism, either. Yet the Reform movement is retained in the article. As I mentioned above, Samaritans are included in the article, and that sect hasn't been considered part of Judaism for something like 2000 years? And they have significantly fewer adherents than the messianic movement? I see lots of double standards and little academic honesty. As many have said before, Judaism does recognize the concept of messiah—though what that means is open for debate. Various candidates have come and gone. One candidate has a large following, and has endured for 2000 years in some form or another. That in itself is significant. You may not like it, you certainly don't have to accept it personally, but it is noteworthy and should be mentioned in an encyclopedia. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No scholarly sources list Messianic Judaism as a Jewish denomination, it would be original research to include it. There are four modern main denominations that have emerged from within traditional Judaism along with various movements. You can read more details about the history/emergence of Jewish denominations in this online reprint from the scholarly source, The Jewish Religion: A Companion, by Dr. Louis Jacobs, published by Oxford University Press. The modern movement mislabeled "Messianic Judaism" has its origins in Christianity, not Judaism, which is why you won't find it listed under Judaism in any comparative religion textbook or history of Judaism. It is already mentioned in the Alternative Judaism article, for those "ignorant" readers you mention who might mistake it for Judaism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be said, with a high level of accuracy, that Christianity had its origins in Judaism. Specifically that Christianity was originally messianic Judaism. So to say that MJ had roots in Christianity and not Judaism is not factual. One of the earliest debates in Christianity was whether or not gentiles should be allowed to participate. Followers of Yeshua were simply another Jewish sect. It was only when gentiles began to outnumber Jews that the two diverged significantly. Historically, Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, and the concept of Jewish followers of Yeshua has plenty of historical authenticity. The modern upswing of the Jewish roots movement (in Christianity) and the messianic movement (in Judaism) has illuminated that historical connection. Due to an intervening 1500 years of largely gentile Christendom, I can understand why Jewish scholars do not include messianics as a group within Judaism. But the fact remains that it is largely their perception that makes it so. There is no central tenet of Judaism that categorically states "if you think Yeshua is the messiah, you're out of the club". (Yes, I'm aware of the objections, so we needn't go into them.) Judaism awaits a messiah. Some Jews believe they've found one. Basically that's it. Also...if inclusion on alternative Judaism is sufficient reason to remove MJ from Jewish denominations, then surely you intend to be consistent by removing Jewish Renewal and Humanistic Judaism as well? I have no problem with listing the minor sects in a separate section/page, as long as there is consistency and not a double standard. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would favor removing Samaritans from this article. ChristTrekker, please do not turn this into a disputation: the more you insist, the more good faith you lose. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to insist that editors act fairly, in accordance with WP:NPOV. Double standards do not belong here—that is not in dispute. ⇔ ChristTrekker 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Trekker, these talk pages are not here to debate our personal philosophies. Christianity diverged off into its own religion two millennia ago. No scholarly source would list Christianity or Messianic Judaism or any of its variants as Jewish denominations. As far as Jewish Renewal, it's more of a movement found within the other denominations, not really a denomination itself per se. Humanistic Judaism is quite small, but is often added as the fifth Jewish denomination [1]. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Trekker, there are very few things that all the Jewish denominations are in complete agreement on. One of the only things I can think of that all Jews seem to agree on is that Messianic Judaism is not a form of Judaism, but rather a form of Christianity. --Metzenberg 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, Metzenberg. I'm damned sure you mean almost all. All Jews except for Messianic Jews (which are Jews according to Jewish law). And a number of non-religious/secular Jews. Oh yeah, and a number of liberal rabbis such as Dan Cohn-Sherbock and Carol Harris-Shapiro. You get the idea. ;) Noogster 20:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity formally emerged in about 135 CE from the takeover of Jerusalem by corrupt Roman Hellenists, destroying the leadership of the Netzarim Yehudim (original Pharisaic followers of Ribi Yehoshua, or Yeshua in Aramaic, the "Apostles" being the first) and dispersing them. This became epitomized by the 4th century with the rise of Constantine, from who's pagan doctrines under pain of death all forms of Christianity now descend. It is almost diametrically opposite the original Jewish community of followers of Yeshua. Most segments of Messianic Judaism fail as miserably to be an accurate reconstruction of the 1st-century community of followers of Yehoshua Ha-Mashiakh (since at best they have a midway between Jewish and Christian practices) as Conservative Judaism entirely fails to be halakhic in its quest to be in between Reform and Orthodox (legitimate). For more info see http://netzarim.co.il And this is coming from a Messianic. Noogster 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Secular Humanistic

I've removed the Secular Humanistic entry, and for good reason: there is not a more foundational principle in Judaism than the fact that there is a G-d. The two concepts are simply inseparable. It's like a car without its engine. Maybe someone has questions/comments about this, or thinks this a bad move (if so, address it here), but just like Messianic Judaism this is already listed in the Alternative Jewish movements article. Noogster 07:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.D. said in his edit summary: "I am an observant and believing Jew. But, objectively speaking, I agree that this article should include at least some reference to Humanistic Judaism." My question is, why should it be? If objectivity is your goal, why would you include the movement that rejects any concept of G-d, observance of the Torah, or traditional synagogal worship, while actively campaigning against the mention of Messianic Judaism, which does believe in G-d, promote observance of the Torah, and generally conducts services in a traditional synagogal environment. What I consider a "Jewish denomination" is relative to how many of Maimonides' 13 principles are followed; Messianic Judaism can be said to be in line with almost all of them, whereas Humanistic is in line with virtually none. Noogster 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Noogster. While Maimonides 13 principles have become a widely recognized statement about what the beliefs of traditional Judaism are, Rabbinical authorites have always agreed that there is no halakhic obligation to believe them. You are attempting to impose a Christian belief concept (a creed) as a test of which Jewish religious organizations are Jewish. --Metzenberg 19:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I "impose" nothing. It is well-understood by me that legitimacy in the Jewish community is primarily based on Orthopraxy (right practice) over Orthodoxy (right belief), a la Constantine. But there is simply no objective argument that allows the Humanistic movement to be categorized as a non-alternative Jewish movement. Without up, there is no down; without fuel, there is no fire; without G-d there is no Judaism. I am simply invoking Maimonides' 13 principles because there it is a good place to start when discussing the objectivity of this topic. Noogster 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Noogster. I added the sentence about klal Israel above. I would characterize Humanistic Judaism as being an organization that participates in some notion of klal Israel, and recognizes and studies the Torah and Jewish writings as the basis of Jewish history and culture, although without divinity. They are a small worldwide Jewish movement. Messianic Judaism is not a Jewish movement because it is not recognized as a part of klal Israel. Genook? (Yiddish, meaning enuff!) Let's move on. --Metzenberg 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not recognized by who? There is no uber beit din that decides such matters for the whole Jewish community. If anything, Humanistic is at least as opposed as MJ or more by any councils/arbitrators that decide what is and is not within acceptable bounds of Jewish practice. Noogster 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an overwhelming consensus on this matter amongst Jewish organizations and religious leaders. To the extent that there is any dissent at all on the issue, you might take that up on the Messianic Judaism page you have worked on, but not here. --Metzenberg 21:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know all religious Jewish leaders are rejecting the Secular Humanistic movement very strongly. Factually, Humanistic is tiny compared to Messianic, and has little or no potential to attract Jews that believe in G-d, so you won't see Jewish leaders mention it much. Noogster 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the consensus of Jewish leaders and organizations that Messianic Jews are Xtians. Humanist Judaism, and the other hand, are part of klal Israel. It appears to me that no matter how many times I answer you, you are going to come back for more, so I am not going to answer you any further. --Metzenberg 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to concede because you continue to avoid the essence of the question: Who in the world decides which minor movements identifying as Jewish are part of klal Israel, and which are not? Orthodox Rabbis would be my best guess, and they consider the Traditional Judaism movement to be apostasy, let alone Secular Humanistic. You refuse to admit that you have no sufficient answer that is able to rubber-stamp Secular Humanistic as a mainstream brand of Judaism while allowing Messianic Judaism or whatever have you to escape being considered under equal auspices, with any amount of objectivity. Noogster 01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Norman Lamm is the President of Yeshiva University, and is about as mainstream as you can get in Modern Orthodox Judaism. Read this address (dated 1986) in which Lamm states his views on Orthodox recognition of non-Orthodox Jewish movements and leaders. [ http://www.yu.edu/lamm/seventy.html ] Lamm's address is a basic statement that Orthodox Judaism recognizes that other Jewish movements are klal Yisrael but nevertheless not halakhically legitimate. --Metzenberg 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development of modern "denominations"

This represents a new organization of a former section: Broader historical framework to explain the development of the denominations.

Response to Enlightenment in Europe
Response to emigration from Europe and immigration into anglophone countries in which a Christian culture is dominant, but Jews have full civil and political rights.
Response to new pressures of assimilation in these anglophone countries, which allow Jews full participation in society, in which Jews have found unprecedented acceptance.

There is a huge literature in each of the three areas. Can anyone think of any others. --Metzenberg 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Orthodox Judaism = non-compromised historically continued Judaism, whereas Reform = a total assimilation of Jewish values into secular western society, whereas Conservative attempts to find a midpoint between both. This is explained in some more detail here at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkIEh9RpvM Noogster 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Noogster. You lack the knowledge and the neutrality to make any further contributions to this page. Please go elsewhere. --Metzenberg 05:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Haskalah or Jewish Enlightenment

This section, which was written before I started to work on this page, is unsourced, and it contains many factual errors. Therefore, I am simply going to remove the material that used to be here. Here are some examples of the factual errors that this section formerly contained:

Reform Judaism did not "spread throughout Europe" before coming to America. Indeed, it never spread to the Austrian Empire, Poland, or Russia. It was the dominant form of Judaism in America before the arrival of large numbers of Russian and Polish Jews, beginning about 1880.

Conservative Judaism was not a split from Reform Judaism. To the contrary, it was a movement of formerly Orthodox Yeshiva trained Jews who wanted a more modern approach to Judasim but rejected some of the innovations of Reform Judaism. --Metzenberg 05:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is true. In Europe, Reform Judaism was a German phenomenon that spread west-ward. Also, Conservative Judaism was a reaction to Reform Judaism, not a split from it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstructionist movement

The article says the Reconstructionists "formally separated" from the Conservative movement in the 1980s. Is that right? The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation was founded in 1955, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College was established in 1968, and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association in 1974. [2] I'm not sure if any of those events might qualify as a "formal separation," but I would say that the separation was earlier than the 80s. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There was definite contention as early as Mordecai Kaplan even entered the Conservative movement. However, yes, the formal split of Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, and the conscious decision to develop the two movements entirely independent of one another's authority, was in the 1980's. Note that from my perspective, neither are legitimate/halakhic forms of Judaism because Judaism is historically non-negotiable (i.e. non-selective Torah observance; Orthodoxy) and fully centered around the communal worship of G-d (Reconstructionist), though that's not relevant here. Noogster 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, Noogster. I don't mean to be obnoxious, but your message demonstrates a deep ignorance of Jewish religious history.

* Kaplan was ordained at JTS, the Conservative movement's seminary, so there wasn't contention "as early as [he] entered the Conservative movement."

* "Judaism is historically non-negotiable" -- I don't even know where to begin. Judaism and halakha have been evolving for more than 2000 years. There are religious "obligations" that have been "interpreted out" of the Torah -- have you heard about the slaying of any disobedient children lately? -- and some things that are permitted in Ashkenazi tradition are not allowed in Sephardic and vice versa.

* Your "perspective" that the Conservative movement isn't halakhic suggests that you know very little about that movement. The Conservative movement is indeed a halakhic movement, although its view is that the historical evolution of halakha has been retarded -- and in some ways reversed -- in the modern age by the rigidity of the Orthodox movements, in reaction to Reform Judaism and other contemporary pressures. I could cite dozens of examples of this phenomenon, but I have better ways to spend my time. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Founded in America" ?

This article says that Conservative Judaism was "[f]ounded in the United States." Conservative Judaism says the movement "developed in Europe and the United States." Reconstructionist Judaism describes Reconstructionism as "the only major movement of Judaism to originate in North America." It's been a long time since I studied the history of the various Jewish movements and I don't remember all the details, but I hope somebody can nail down the facts so all three articles can be made consistent with one another. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism had philosophical antecedents in Germany. These are often stated in histories of the Conservative movement. The first expression of a Conservative viewpoint is often dated to Rabbi Zecharias Frankel in Germany, in 1845, when he withdrew from the German Reform movements, stating his reasons. As his wikipedia article currently states, "Frankel was the founder and the most eminent member of the school of historical Judaism, which advocates freedom of research, while upholding the authority of traditional Jewish belief and practice. This school of thought was the intellectual progenitor of Conservative Judaism." But the actual institutions of Conservative Judaism were founded in the United States. The beginning of Conservative Judaism was the opening of Jewish Theological Seminary. However, Conservative Judaism was a tiny movement until Solomon Schechter was recruited to serve as chancellor of JTS early in the 20th century. See Rabbi Neil Gillman's History of Conservative Judaism (Conservative Judaism: The New Century), which is referenced from the page about Rabbi Gillman here on Wikipedia. Portions of the book, which is short, are available to read online at the JTSA website. --Metzenberg 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/w/Talk%7EJewish_denominations_f8da.html"

Category: WikiProject Judaism articles