The Problem with the use of the word Judaism to describe something prior to ~1300 CE

[Ehav4Ever]

In this thread I will be discussing the problems with English articles, texts, etc. that discuss or attempt to describe any form of Ivri, Yisraeli (Israeli) or Yehudi (Jewish) practice using the word Judaism to do so. Using terminology found in ancient documents will be necessary for what I will be posting so be prepared that I will do a lot of transliterating for specific terms in the Hebrew language to english.

As background information for what I will be discussing the following will be helpful.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

As mentioned in the OP, "Using terminology found in ancient documents will be necessary for what I will be posting so be prepared that I will do a lot of transliterating for specific terms in the Hebrew language to english." That being said, the following article will be relevant to what I will be discussing on what terms are valid to a culture from thousands of years ago.

Based on the above article I would like to focus on the following statement.

and also,

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Going by the above, it must be stated that in Modern Hebrew the word for religion in relation to a "god" based faith is (דת) pronouced "Dawth or Dat." Though the word (דת) is derived from the ancient, Mishnaic, etc. Hebrew word (דת), the word in more ancient forms of Hebrew does not mean "religion" at all and does not relate to the faith in a deity at all. The below describes how the word, at least in ancient Yehudi / Yisraeli cultures the word would be better translated into English.

Thus, there is no word in Ancient Hebrew to denote what is modernly meant by the word "religion" and thus in Modern Hebrew the word in Ancient Hebrew of (דת), as a part of the evolution of Hebrew as a language in the national setting.

Taking this into account, the word in Modern Hebrew for Judaism is (יהדות). The Modern Hebrew word (יהדות) is derived from an older group of Hebrew words of either (דת יהודית) "Dath Yehudith" meaning the "customs, laws, practices, ec. of the Yehudim (Judeans/Jews)" or from the later term (יהדות), due to the evolution of the langauge, came to mean the same thing.

That being said, at the time of the terms being spoken of the people in question who used the term the "customs, laws, practices, ec. of the Yehudim (Judeans/Jews)" was the Torah that they claimed was given to their ancestors as a part of a mass revelation at Mount Sinai, but the Source of creation/reality/etc. which I will use the term Hashem to describe. I.e. when I use the term Hashem, I am using it to describe the Source of creation/reality/etc. not as I or anyone else beleive it to be - but instead as it is in reality whether we know that reality or not.

Support for what I mentioned comes from the following sources of Jewish history. Mishnah Mesecheth Kevuvoth 7 Mishnah 6, Talmud Bavli Mesecheth Ketuvoth 92, and others.

Also, according to the Academy of the Hebrew Language, here in Israel, the above information is supported. It describes both the source and the root of the word (יהדות) "Yahaduth" as I described above. Even in modern Hebrew, the definition of the word, by way of etymology, is not related to the modern concept of a religion, but instead "customs, laws, practices, ec. of the Yehudim (Judeans/Jews)".

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Just a disclaimer, the information I am posting consists of what can found in the oral and written ancestral accounts and/or claims of the following comunities.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Two points come to mind:

1. Map is not the territory.
2. Being loud is tiresome.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Three thoughts come to my mind.

1. Information is alwats appreciated by at least someone, even if not by a small few. Especially those who would normally not have access to said information.
2. The freedom of expression is always something that should be excercised and has historical benefit if put in a place where all can see it.
3. Whether or not someone likes, or agrees with something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or should be treated as such.

I am also reminded of two statement that Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon (Rambam) made.

“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”

“Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.”
― Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed

Shabbat Shalom

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Now concerning another issue that exists towards what I mentioned in the OP is that the "Judaism" as it is used in English is not a term that is historically accurate for all Torah based, Yisraeli, peoples in the past. What I mean by this is that there are groups who were not from the region of Yehudah (English Judah) and never had a history of being called Yehudim (Jews). One surviving group that has this situation are the Shomoronim, known as the Samaritans in English.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Of interests to the above, concerning how what is called modernly in English as Samaritanism has to be indentified as something seperate from what is in English is Judaism, again going back to my post in the OP and after in the English language, is the following. The below is from the Israelite Samaritan's English web-site.

RELIGION – Israelite Samaritan Information Institute

www.israelite-samaritans.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Now concerning another issue that exists towards what I mentioned in the OP is that the "Judaism" as it is used in English is not a term that is historically accurate for all Torah based, Yisraeli, peoples in the past.

Oh give it a rest. We are not in the past. We are right now. And Judaism IS currently the English word that refers to the religion of Torah based Jews.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Just FYI. The name of the thread is "The Problem with the use of the word Judaism to describe something prior to ~1300 CE." I.e. this thread is talking about the past, prior to 1300CE, and what accurately describes something prior to ~1300 CE. The thread has nothing to do with English used in describe something in the modern time in the western world. Given that there is no RF rule I am aware of against me posting in the Orthodox Judaism DIR on this topic, there is nothing wrong with me writing here using sources to discuss the issue.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just FYI. The name of the thread is "The Problem with the use of the word Judaism to describe something prior to ~1300 CE."

And I already replied to that question. One of several things I said was that just because a word doesn't exist until 1400 CE doesn't mean you can't use it to describe things before that time. Judaism is the term we use today to describe the Torah based religion of Jews, regardless of the time in history. The problem is, you don't respond to my points. You just continue to go on and on and on.

Maybe if you say it 100x it will come true.

 

[Harel13]

Oh give it a rest. We are not in the past. We are right now. And Judaism IS currently the English word that refers to the religion of Torah based Jews.

And I already replied to that question. One of several things I said was that just because a word doesn't exist until 1400 CE doesn't mean you can't use it to describe things before that time. Judaism is the term we use today to describe the Torah based religion of Jews, regardless of the time in history. The problem is, you don't respond to my points. You just continue to go on and on and on.

Maybe if you say it 100x it will come true.

*Mod post: Reminder, please refrain from debating in the DIR. The Judaism sub-DIRs were opened to cross-posting by members of different Jewish denominations provided that such posts remain respectful of the views and beliefs of the particular sub-DIR and its members. Furthermore, debating in DIRs is not allowed in general.*​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

*Mod post: Reminder, please refrain from debating in the DIR. The Judaism sub-DIRs were opened to cross-posting by members of different Jewish denominations provided that such posts remain respectful of the views and beliefs of the particular sub-DIR and its members. Furthermore, debating in DIRs is not allowed in general.*​

Oh so sorry. Sometimes I get an alert for this or that post, and I don't check which forum. I should be better about that.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In connection to what I mentioned above about the split between Yehudim (Israelis of Judea / Torah based Jews) and the Shomronim (Samaritans of the region of Samaria), if one goes back prior to 1300 CE, one could not define a what took place as a split between sects of Judaism. I.e. only one side was Jewish.

It is important to state that Samaritans claim to be from the tribes of Yoseph ben-Ya'aqov (Joseph son of Jacob) where Yehudim, after about the 1st Temple period, claim to be from either a) the tribe of Yehudah ben-Ya'aqov (Judah son of Jacob) or b) a mixture of Benei Yisrael (Israelis) from various tribes including the ones who were in the northern kingdom who moved to region of Yehudah during the split in the Benei Yisrael kingdom.

What this means is that on one side, the Samaritans, can't be categorized, even modernly, as being Jewish and on the other side what they practiced anciently and what they still practice in the modern time can't be defined as being Judaism. Thus, the term used for what they did / do is Samaritanism and not Judaism.

Thus, an outsider from before 1300 CE would come to the conclusion that the split was based on a divide or issue of what could be termed at that time as actually (דת משה) Dat Mosheh (statutes, customs, laws, etc. of Moses) which both sides claimed were derived from the Creator of all things, Hashem, as it was trasnmitted to Mosheh ben-Amram (Moses).

The reasons would be based, in one perspective, on the following agreements between both sides. For example, both sides agree on the following.

Yet, the differences between both groups are:

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another, modern example, is that most Jewish movements of today do not consider a Jew who practices Christianity to be following Judaism. Even if said Jew calls what they practice Judaism, most people would not agree with this claim - including many Christians. This is because in part, historically, the early Jewish Christians went into a direction that took them outside of the Torah based accepted norms of the Jewish and even Samaritan practices of Torah. Further, the original Jewish Christian group(s), similar to the Essenes, seperated themselves from the Torah based Jews of their generation and did not historically survive.

Thus, this means that as with any category there is a limit to what is considered a part of it and what is not. Taking this back to the OP, if there were a group of Benei Yisrael / Yehudim who were found to be doing something that historically has not been proven to be a norm found among the majority of surviving communities, of course what said group was doing would not be defined as Yahaduth or even Judaism. It would be defined as them doing something else - i.e. a new category would need to be created for them and thier practice.

Of course the questions that would have to be addressed are:

1. What groups could be identified as being Yehudim / Benei Yisrael?
2. What is proven to be the ancient norms of all said Yehudim / Benei Yisrael of the time period in question?
3. How much agreement exists among the Yehudi diaspora to detail what the ancient norms of their ancestors of diaspora group were?