Honoring the Hebrew Language: Simshalom debates

On Wikipedia

(Please read  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License  if you use this material. Thank you.)

Simshalom says: Do Gilgamesh and Mustafa "own" Hebrew on Wikipedia?
Here is a dialogue with users Mustafa and Gligamesh that deserves to be posted here for anyone concerned with where they have "taken" all articles pertaining to Hebrew language and its "categorization": See Is Hebrew a "Cananite Language" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IZAK#The_term_Canaanite_languages ) on User talk:IZAK

Mustafaa says: The term Canaanite languages has a precise linguistic meaning. The ancient Hebrews may not have been "Canaanites", but their language belongs to the Canaanite subfamily of Northwest Semitic. This linguistic classification is not in any way controversial, and has no bearing on the ethnic classification of the Jews. - Mustafaa 04:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Hebrew wikipedia ( http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99 ) agrees, by the way. - Mustafaa 04:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: The citation you quote from the "Hebrew" wikipedia is way off. It has almost no information and is accepting a FALSE categorization, as Hebrew is the language of the Torah, Tanakh, and Mishnah which go back for two to four thousand years. No-one knows what Ammonite, Edomite or Cananite is, as today all there is, is almost only Arabic in those areas, and Arabic is a Hebrew derivative. Hebrew is a uniquely defined language that has survived in all its fullness, whereas nothing or very little is known about Canaanites and their languages barring what the Torah (Bible) records. IZAK 05:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: Edomite, Moabite, and Ammonite are all known from several inscriptions, the most important of which I have linked to in their respective articles. These reveal - unsurprisingly - that these languages were extremely similar to Hebrew and to Phoenician. Because of the common geographical location of these languages in Canaan, linguists have chosen to call them "Canaanite languages". This in no way implies categorizing the Hebrews as ethnically Canaanite, any more than calling languages "Semitic" implies accepting that their speakers actually descend from Shem. - Mustafaa 05:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A citation, from Les Langues Chamito-Sémitiques" (ed. D. Cohen), Paris 1988:  [Kena`an...] est à l'origine du terme cananéen par lequel on désigne l'ensemble des langues sémitiques qui ont été en usage dans la région, soit essentiellement l'hébreu et le phénicien (avec son extension punique) et, pour ceux qui y reconnaissent une langue autonome, le moabite. (although he later includes brief entries on the less well attested languages, including that of El Amarna, Edomite, and Ammonite).  [Kena`an]... is the origin of the term "Canaanite" by which one designates the group of Semitic languages which were in use in the region, mainly Hebrew, Phoenician (including Punic), and, for those who consider it a separate language, Moabite. - Mustafaa 05:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)  And finally, a source more familiar to non-linguists: the Encyclopedia Britannica ( http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=20202&tocid=0&query=canaanite%20languages ). - Mustafaa 05:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Ah, yes, the key phrase you use is "linguists have chosen to call them "Canaanite languages"...So now the question is, what if one rejects the notions of these "linguists" and abides instead by the notions of say, "THEOLOGIANS" or more specifically HEBREW Theologians, who would utterly reject the speculations and hypothesis of these "Linguists"? To go just by the views of "linguists" would be to violate NPOV on Wikipedia as one needs to constantly present the views of the classical HEBREWS (aka as Jews) who abide by the classical teachings of Judaism, which teach that Hebrew was the language of Creation and of all humanity at one point. It was at the Tower of Babel that all the people were dispersed and were divided by (newly) conflicting tongues, or is this too much for you to "swallow"? IZAK 05:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: This has been a lot of exercise today. IZAK, you need to understand, and please read because I will say this once because I am not very comfortable with long essays and paragraphs. - Linguistics is a very well-established science of comparing languages and how they split from each other, a process that never stops. I personally do not dispute the history of the Book of Genesis; I personally (by POV) believe that Terah was a descendant of Eber (founder of the Hebrews), and Abraham was Terah's son, and Lot was Terah's grandson. Ben-ammi and Moab were Lot's sons, and Esau and Jacob were Abraham's grandsons. Ishmael too, is an Eberite in a such a context. However, these distinctions do not translate into parallel linguistic splits. That does not deny that these people existed, but it's far more likely (and scholarly-accepted) that the languages that became associated with them were languages they adopted from other peoples. In the case of Abraham and his children in Canaan, they adopted the local Canaanite language for local communication. Samples of all four Canaanite languages adopted by Hebrew peoples are attested, written in early scripts related to Hebrew. Phoenician and Punic are also well-attested Canaanite languages, closely related to Hebrew, but the Phoenicians actually were Canaanites, and not Hebrews. (The Punic language survived until well into the Roman Empire, and was a favorite literary language of Augustine of Hippo. Now, the Canaanite dialects adopted by Abraham's family and Lot's family in Canaan only became "Hebrew" because they didn't stop speaking it for a very very long time, and it became the language associated with them, and the prophets of the Bible wrote in it. As for what language Abraham spoke before he settled in Canaan (the pre-Abrahamic Hebrew language), we can't say; that's why there are theories at Hebrew language. This is all well-established in the pages of the Torah and the Bible, as linguistic relations between the four Hebrew peoples and the Phoenicians and Carthaginians are well-attested in the scientific world. The truth is, people of the biblical Hebrew family adopted different languages where they settled. Canaanite languages by the children of Isaac and Lot, Arabian languages by the children of Ishmael, and later, old dialects of Aramaic, Arabic, Spanish and German by the Jewish diaspora for their daily discourse. But scientifically, the interrelated languages of Hebrews in Canaan are all Canaanite languages no more or less related to each other than the languages spoken by the ethnic Canaanites themselves, and are only also called "Hebrew languages" because they were biblical peoples in the Holy Land who spoke the same language. Since the Torah is theology, we can present it as a POV belief, but not as NPOV fact without concrete scientific proof. As such, we can't actually (yet) prove the historicity of Terah or Abraham (though we can still keep trying), and the distinction "Hebrew" remains an unscientific one. (That's why the Hebrew language articles were both in "Category:Canaanite languages" and "Category:Hebrew language", because one is scientific and the other is religious.) Now please, I understand and appreciate your religious passions, but keep in mind we can only mention theology as a POV, and that the only fact allowed in Wikipedia is NPOV science. - Gilgamesh - 05:53, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Gilgamesh: I appreciate your time and efforts. But really this is all "theology" as were it not for the Bible this discussion and the mere names "Ammonite", "Edomite", "Cananite" would not even be known today. The so-called POV theology has been around for thousands of years. A few years ago some academics with nothing better to do commnenced the process of chopping up anything too "religious" that came into their line of fire and proceeded to impose their arbitrary POV so-called "categories" which are just sheer nonsense and make a mockery of well-estblished religiously reliable facts. Now, there are also sometimes fellow-travelers to the anti-religious academics who latch onto the teachings of the "linguists" (in this case), and whilst having their own agenda (of promoting Jesus or Allah or whatever) claim to share the views of the secular scholars when all they really want to do is to diminish the UNIQUE role and history of the Hebrew people and their language, and in this case "Hebrew" has ALWAYS been synonymous with "Jew"...now you are coming along and telling the world in effect that "Not all Hebrews are the Jews and not all Jews come from Hebrews", which is a patent lie and attempt at distortion of the contination of Jewish=Hebrew identity which so frustrates the anti-Semites and anti-Zionists that they will do ANYTHINg to cast aspersions on the cherished traditions of the teachings of the Torah and Judaism that tell us that the Hebrews are the Jews and that the Jews are the Hebrews and that they alone spoke what we call today the Hebrew language, which they preserved for 2,000 years in the their Talmudic and scholarly texts and which they revived as a spoken language in Israel BECAUSE the Hebrew that was part of them never ceased to exist at all. IZAK 06:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: I think Gilgamesh's point is that, since `Ivri comes from Eber, it should refer to all descendants of Eber, and thus that "Not all Hebrews are the Jews" (although all Jews are Hebrews) is exactly what the Torah implies. Is your point that Ivri does not mean "descendants of Eber"? If so, could you expand on it? - Mustafaa 06:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Mustafaa: Also not too complicated: See: Why are the Jews called "Hebrews"? (http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=174&o=2441 ): "The word "Hebrew" comes from the Hebrew word "Ivri." Jews are called Hebrews because their ancestor and founder, Abraham, is called (Genesis 14:13) "Abraham the Ivri." The word Ivri means "from the [other] side," and Abraham came to the Land of Canaan from Mesopotamia which was "on the other side" of the Euphrates. Additionally, Abraham, with his monotheistic beliefs, was on one side while the rest of the world was on the other (pagan) side." IZAK 06:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: IZAK, I don't dispute that you believe what you believe, and I never disputed that the Jews were Hebrews. But even the Tanakh says that not all Hebrews were Jews (but all Jews were Hebrews, which I never contested). But at some point religious belief is inadmissible in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a medium of the scientific method. You're allowed not to like that, and you're allowed to speak your mind to other people and tell them how much you don't like it. I encourage it. But the rules are made by Wikipedia, not me, and facts are only admissible if the scientific method attests to them; otherwise, it's just belief and can only be mentioned as such. And even if Wikipedia were a religious discussion center, there's still the matter that nearly all religions disagree on certain points, and they would still have to compromise and cooperate in maintaining a single archive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, not merely an encyclopedia for Rabbinical Jews, nor for fundamentalist Christians, nor for conservative Islamists, nor even for militant Atheists. It's for everyone, and everyone is welcome to make NPOV edits at Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 06:41, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Gilagamesh: I do not dispute what you say. When FACTS are misrepresented then it is is only right to correct them. And to accept only an "assertion" that something is so, is no subsitute for intellectual honesty. We have before us ancient TORAH texts, not "rabbinical" texts, but classical well-preserved and reliable texts revered by hundreds of millions of people, not just Jews and not just by "fundamentalists" as being reliable. This is as scientific and NPOV as a scientist looking into a petri dish which he should stick to doing as he is out of his depth when he applies "petrie dish" methods and theories to black-and white texts that say what they mean and mean what they say. A lawyer in law school would be expected to read, study and explain the statutes and laws, we would not care how well he conducted experiments with his legal ideas because that's not what you do with legal ideas and the language of law. Similarly, to chop up and insert speculations about the language of the Torah and what the words mean is not meant as a "Sunday afternoon stroll" in the hocus-pocus world of anti-religious secular academics and their cohorts. IZAK 06:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: I'm frankly at a loss for words. This is like claiming that every biology article we write should include a Creationism section, or that every cosmology article should include a disclaimer stating that the world was created in six days - except that those doctrines are specifically claimed by the Bible, whereas Bereshit does not say which language was spoken before Babel. - Mustafaa 05:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Darling:Just LOOK at the language of the original Torah! What is it? And of course it is HEBREW. Does it have to say "By the way, we are now speaking Hebrew" when it is obvious that ONLY Hebrew is being spoken. And yes, when touching upon Biblically related "hot-potato" subjects like the oririgins of languages and the origin of life (which NO "scientist" can "know" as there were no scientists to take notes). We can only work with the primary texts and in this case the Torah and the Tanakh are the most reliable texts we have, unless we want to look at the Rosetta stone forever.... IZAK 06:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: Um, I don't know what you think I meant, but of course the language of the Torah is Hebrew. Who was arguing about that? - Mustafaa 06:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: This is the point:The language ALL humanity spoke prior to the Tower of Babel was the Hebrew of the Torah, it's not that complicated. That why all languages have TRACES of Hebrew in them. Linguists agree that all languages are derived from one ancient "unkown" "core language". In Judaism, this is NOT a "mystery", that one core language was the ancient Hebrew of the Torah, which subsequently becomes reserved for the Hebrew people only commencing with Abraham, as a devotee of the HEBREW God who spoke with him and it is Abraham who brought it to Canaan and NOT the other way around. Now, is that not a beauty of reason and logic, and not mere "theology"  :-) IZAK 06:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov says: IZAK, the theories you are supporting are protestant and not Jewish in origin. I have always learned that Judaism is nt a mystery religion but one which is in harmony with scientific discoveries. Can you name one orthodox Jewish published source which advocates the ideas you are promoting? I am curious because it seems such theories may have been purposefully kept hidden from me since I was originaly agnostic and attracted to the scientific nature of orthodox Judaism to rediscover my roots. To be honest I find the "logic" you are using to be a little disturbing from a Jewish perspective. From a Jewish theological POV, the holy toungue is holy only because that is the language in which the Torah came through Moses. I have never heard of a Jewish argument that Hebrew was the language of Eden, though I have heard this from certain fringe protestant groups. Likewise Hebrews are the children of Eber, hence Abraham was also called Hebrew, he was not the first, though this idea is again very common among protestants. So once again I think it is very important for you to support your perspective as Jewish by producing some traditional sources. The use of the terms Hamitic and Semitic in linguistics is outmoded and inaccurate. Hebrew and Naharaim "Children of Eber" for example are the only "Semitic" peoples in the whole Afro-asiatic language family (also being the northernmost members) -so where are the other Shemites? Obviously the use of such terms for categorising languages has come anf should very soon be gone. Classifying languages by region is much more logical than supposed "race". Zestauferov 02:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Zest: Just for the record, the main discussion is at Talk:Hebrew languages, but since you raise the matter here I will show you just a few sources where this subject is discussed in classical Judaic terms, and NOT "Protestant", (if the Protestants "borrowed" from Judaism they are no less "guilty" than the Catholics or Moslems):  Uniqueness of the Hebrew language according to Judaism: The following are a few sources both from university professors and rabbis on the subject of Hebrew as the Lashon Kakodesh ("Holy Tongue/Language") and why it's important:  Article by Dr. Mayer Gruber, Associate Professor in the Department of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University:  Hebrew is the original language of humanity and the language spoken by God(http://www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/Languages/Languages_Hebrew_TO/Languages_HebHis_Jacobs/Languages_Hebrew_Theo.htm) Article by By Alvin I. Schiff, Ph.D., Irving I. Stone Distinguished Professor of Education Azrieli Graduate School, Yeshiva University President, National Center for the Hebrew Language:  Why Hebrew is Fundamental (http://www.ivrit.org/html/why_hebrew/story_04.html ) Article by Rabbi Bar-Hayim, head of the Makhon Ben Yishai Institute for Tora Research in Jerusalem:  Lashon Haqodesh (Loshon Ha Kodesh) (http://www.torahlight.com/lashon.html )
Article from Rabbi Michael Taubes' Kehillas Tzemach Dovid, Teaneck, NJ: Learning and Speaking Hebrew (http://www.tzemachdovid.org/thepracticaltorah/noach.shtml )
Brief article by Rabbi David Bassous of Congregation Etz Ahaim, Highland Park, NJ:The Holiness of Hebrew, Lashon Hakodesh (http://www.benporatyosef.org/etzahaim/halakha/rambam.htm ) :
"Rambam (Maimonides)is of the opinion that there is no intrinsic sanctity in 'Lashon Hakodesh' but rather its sanctity is derived from its lack of vulgar and coarse language. Though he speaks of the "kedushah" of Hebrew (Kedushat Halashon), Rambam does not mean that there is a sacred quality in the language. He uses "kedushah" in the sense of moral restraint, pointing out that Hebrew has avoided coining words for the reproductive organs nor for semen, nor for urination or excretion, excepting in indirect language or for the act of intercourse. Ramban (Nachmanides) however states that Hebrew is a holy language because it was the vehicle used by G-d to create the world and communicate with man, through the Torah. He states that according to Rambam Hebrew should have been only been called the 'modest language' not a Holy Language.... I am of the opinion that this is the same reason why our Rabbis call the language of the Torah "The Sacred Language," because the words of the Torah, and the prophecies, and all words of holiness were all expressed in that language. It is thus the language in which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with His prophets, and with His people. In this tongue He is called by His sacred names. In that tongue He created His world, and called the names shamayim (heavens), eretz (earth) and all that is in them, His angels and all His hosts - he called them all by name. In that language He called the names of the holy ones that are in the earth: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Solomon, and others."

Zestauferov says: Thankyou very much for the sources, I must say they came as quite a dissappointing surprise to me. I was aware of the Maimonides view and was in agreement with it. It seems there is much that has been kept from me for apparently obvious reasons. Thankyou again IZAK.Zestauferov 10:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Yeah... The language of the Torah is Hebrew. I don't know how that can be disputable. I mean, there's a possibility other parts of it were written in other languages originally and then translated to Hebrew, but the texts as they were issued by Moses and later in written form by Ezra were in the Biblical Israelite Hebrew dialect. - Gilgamesh 06:30, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Gilagamesh:Kindly restrain yourself from making up "theories", just stick to the facts as they are presented to us in the "primary documents" of the Torah, otherwise you will start to believe in Science fiction that we come from space aliens and that Steven Spielberg is writing the scripts as we speak ...IZAK 06:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Mustafaa's calling it a day from this discussion and so am I. But I am afraid I must be blunt here and now: If you continue to flout the rules of Wikipedia, you'll invite trouble, probably at the administration level. You need to adhere to the editing rules the rest of us adhere to, or you'll find yourself not being able to edit here anymore. - Gilgamesh 06:45, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Oh I see, now you are resorting to scare tactics. I am not "flouting" the rules of Wikipedia and I never have! You have inserted your own POV and grow impatient when your categorization is changed in spite of its erroneous nature. My edit record is excellent. It's your bias that is determining your reaction as you refuse to see or consider a broader more rounded approach to the subject at hand and hence to the truth. What can you do. IZAK 07:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)  This matter is now in Mediation see: Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Request_for_assistance_in_a_conflict_between_users_regarding_Canaanite_and_Hebrew_linguistics_articles) Thank you. IZAK 09:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Danny says: This is the dumbest debate I have seen here yet. Is anyone seriously questioning that there are subdivisions of the Semitic languages or that Hebrew is more closely related to certain Semitic languages than others? That Moabite is more closely related to Hebrew than Aramaic or Arabic? Is this a debate over how to interpret biblical texts literally to form cogent linguistic arguments? If so I am pretty shocked. Danny 11:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Marshaman says: I agree with Danny. Statements such as those by IZAK that blindly support the literal meaning of the Hebrew religious texts have no place here. It is a big world, and lots of the world's peoples have creation myths that they believe in just as strongly as IZAK apparently does in his; which should cause any rational person to at least question that perhaps such stories are not intended to be taken literally by anyone. To do so immediately signals that your belief is the only one that matters over everyone else, an attitude that is disrespectful and belongs not in an encyclopedia of knowledge. There is room here for a theological POV, but in language studies, I would prefer to get my information from linguists, not from 2000+ year old texts written with a very clear POV in the first place.-Marshman 06:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Marshman:"It takes two to tango", perhaps it is the one who "blindly" follows the purely secular viewpoint who is not being rational by rejecting the best original primary sources there are, in their original language yet. IZAK 07:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Not really. The Canaanite linguistics is pretty well-established in the scientific world, though IZAK disputes this. The main dispute is over the category of "Hebrew" languages which is a theological distinction. (Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite and Biblical Israelite Hebrew are attested to have very few differences from each other.) More talk has resumed in Talk:Hebrew language. - Gilgamesh 17:28, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Please note that all further discussions on this topic are taking place at : Talk:Hebrew languages. Thank you. IZAK 02:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles:

BCorr says: I've moved the request/discussion from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation to Talk:Hebrew language and the issue has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, because according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, this should be done before mediation is attempted, and I do think that involving more people in the discussion will help move the issue forward.  Thanks, BCorr??????, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee 12:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: I'm sorry I cannot be of much help. The terminology alone gives me a headache. Can't we let them believe that Hebrew is morphed canaanite. JFW  T@lk 14:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Humus sapiens says: IZAK, I appreciate your request, but am afraid the level discussion is over my head. I need to learn more before making anything intelligible out of it. Regards. ?Humus sapiens?Talk 18:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: When all the edit warring is over, would you mind reviewing Beth din and adding what you think is necessary?? JFW  T@lk 19:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah says: Hi Guys. After looking at the arguments from both sides, may I suggest that a term neutral to either side is used? A term used to refer to the parent language/script of this family is 'Old Negev'. Would a term such as 'Old Negev' Languages be agreeable to both sides?--Josiah 02:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On Wikipedia Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles:

Gilgamesh says: I am Gilgamesh. Mustafaa and I have been having charged conflicts with IZAK over the articles concerning Canaanite languages and Hebrew language. In particular, he seems to dispute the entire science of linguistics and language families, imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it, and has tried to eliminate "Category:Canaanite languages" altogether. The relevant articles are Hebrew language, Canaanite languages, Ammonite language, Moabite language, Edomite language, Biblical Hebrew language, Hebrew alphabet, and the categories "Category:Canaanite languages" and "Category:Hebrew language". Edit histories are available for those articles, and most of the discussion is at User_talk:IZAK, apparently recently mirrored at Talk:Modern Hebrew language. - Gilgamesh 08:23, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Hi, I am IZAK , recently I was reading freshly re-written articles by Gilgamesh and Mustafaa on the above topics. Firstly: I am NOT trying to "to eliminate Category:Canaanite languages altogether". On the contrary, I agree that it should be there. I have no problem with it. My problem is that this category is attempting to encompass the totality of the Hebrew language, including Modern Hebrew language even as spoken in modern-day Israel. No-one associates the Hebrew language with anything "Canaanite" except for a few obscure linguists. For most general scholars and laymen Hebrew has always been classified as a Semitic language, without reference to a dubious "Canaanite" sub-group. The position/s put forward by Mustafaa and Gilgamesh is that there were more than one "Hebrew" language and hence more than one "Hebrew" people. This runs counter to the teachings of Judaism that the ancient Hebrews are the ancestors and direct progenitors of today's Jews. Mustafaa and Gilgamesh want to have it both ways: They seek to impose their own dichotomies and theories about the BIBLICAL Hebrew Language and the BIBLICAL Hebrews aka the Children of Israel, yet when one wants to refer to the contents of that self-same primary source as a framework for discussion they switch-and-bait and declare that now it is all a case of "imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it". If they do not accept the "historicity" of the Hebrew language in its original then they are in effect rejecting 99.99% of all information about the Hebrew people and language as their sources about "Ammonites", "Edomites", "Moabites", and "Cananites" are almost exclusively provided in the Hebrew Bible itself. It is NOT a case of: "In particular, he seems to dispute the entire science of linguistics and language families, imposing historicity of the Abrahamic religion scripture without regard to other people's disputes over it". On the contrary, I am asking for MORE inclusivity by calling for recognition that there are hundred of millions of people, not just Jews, who believe in the truth of the Hebrew Bible in its original language. And, it is in that context that note must be taken that nowhere in the Bible does it say that there were "several" Hebrew people with several Hebrew "languages". Thus, it is ONLY one group that spoke Hebrew and one group that held onto it for millenia and that is the Jewish people as they are known today. If anything, they and their language should be classified as Semitic, they most definitely do NOT belong in Category:Canaanite languages as the Hebrew language is its OWN unique sub-group. Thank you. IZAK 09:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: You do not understand my arguments at all... Though conversely I may have also misunderstood many of your points. I believe Mustafaa and I are correct, as the Canaanite linguistic classification of Hebrew languages in ancient Canaan is attested in linguistics books and academic websites such as Ethnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com/) and Linguist List (http://www.linguistlist.com/). The very historicity of the Hebrews itself is disputed, though I believe in them. But I think the sticking points here are (1) whether Ammon, Moab and Edom can be called Hebrew nations alongside Israel, and (2) whether Hebrew can be classified among the Canaanite languages, and (3) whether "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" or more simply "non-pagan". Oh, and I truly resent being accused of "bait-and-switch". I'm just a bookworm and an editor, and malice is unethical as well as a sin. I do not understand the vehement opposition to what is valid concensus in the linguistics field, and I don't see how it can be contrary to the Torah beliefs either (see Eber and Hebrew and the believed genealogies of Ammon, Moab, Edom and Israel). What on earth did I do to warrant such attacks? I don't believe the Hebrews were Canaanites, nor that the Canaanites were Hebrews; that established, what is so offensive about the idea of Biblical Hebrew being an adopted Canaanite language? I really don't want to step on anyone's toes here. - Gilgamesh 09:21, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Firstly, please calm down as this is only an academic, albeit vigorous, debate.  You must see: Why are the Jews called "Hebrews"? (http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=174&o=2441): "The word "Hebrew" comes from the Hebrew word "Ivri." Jews are called Hebrews because their ancestor and founder, Abraham, is called (Genesis 14:13) "Abraham the Ivri." The word Ivri means "from the [other] side," and Abraham came to the Land of Canaan from Mesopotamia which was "on the other side" of the Euphrates. Additionally, Abraham, with his monotheistic beliefs, was on one side while the rest of the world was on the other (pagan) side."  You will note that it is Abraham who is the original Hebrew as regards the origins of the Hebrew people. You are again injecting your own speculations about Eber for whatever reasons.  With regards to your "points":  "(1) whether Ammon, Moab and Edom can be called Hebrew nations alongside Israel, and (2) whether Hebrew can be classified among the Canaanite languages, and (3) whether "Hebrew" means "descendant of Eber" or more simply "non-pagan"."  Number (3) I answered above showing you the correct path of interpretation as far as Jewish scholraship goes.

Gilgamesh says: As I said before, it is a theological issue, and is open to opinion and interpretation. The various Jewish interpretations is disputable, just as the various Christian, Islamic and atheist interpretations are also disputable. - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: The "various Jewish interpretations" you disparage do not even apply here. It is a black and white citation in the Book of Genesis : In Genesis 14:13 [1](http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.aspACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=14#C276) : Abraham, is called "Abraham the Ivri. (HEBREW)"  With number (2) it is sheer speculation on anyone's part to place Hebrew as a "Canaanite" language. The Book of Genesis records that in Abraham's time there were TEN nations living in Canaan, and they were enemies of Abraham. Were they also "Hebrews" and "Hebrew-speakers" by dint of living in Canaan, or is Abraham an independent and wholy new "Hebrew" who brings his own language with him. Amon, Moab and Edom are all derived from groups that moved AWAY from Abraham's route and developed as their own people and cultures, whatever they spoke has no relation to the later Hebrew language as presented in the written Bible/Torah that Jews had refered to as Lashon HaKodesh the "Holy Tongue (Language)" suitable for their religious rites and holy studies.

Gilgamesh says: They are academically Canaanite. See [2](http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=20202&tocid=0&query=canaanite%20languages), [3] (http://phoenicia.org/semlang.html), [4] (http://www.bartleby.com/65/af/Afroasia.html) - Gilgamesh 10:37, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: And (1)You tell me who considers the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites to be "Hebrews" no different to the Hebrews who became the Children of Israel ? IZAK 10:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Yes, though I believe the Torah says they were different in that they split and became different and went on different paths. See these articles' discussions on Eber and Hebrews. [5] (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=17&letter=E), [6] (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/13_faqs1.html), [ http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=20&q=http://www.bible-history.com/quotes/john_bimson_2.html&e=747 ] - Maybe this should resume, if at all, on Talk:Hebrew language. I did not envision the argument to resume here when this place (that we're cluttering) could be reserved for more mediation requests. It's partially my fault for always responding when and where something is said. - Gilgamesh 11:28, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Zero says: It's a bit hard to figure out exactly what the argument is about, but it looks like IZAK is pushing a particular fundamentalist view based on tradition and Gilgamesh+Mustafaa are pushing the generally accepted scientific classifications based on evidence. As you can infer from the biased way I phrased it, I'm with Gilgamesh+Mustafaa on this. By the way, another source that classifies Hebrew amongst the Canaanite languages is the Jewish Encyclopedia ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=485&letter=H ). I suspect there is no modern academic literature that does otherwise, though it would be interesting to see some. --Zero 14:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Zero: Please note that Gilgamesh on Talk:Modern Hebrew language believes that "..."Also, to say that the default assumed form of Hebrew is Israeli Hebrew is pro-Israel POV. I'm not anti-Israel (I'm a LDS Ephrathite)..." (i.e. Mormons), and that Mustafaa openly proclaims that he is an "anti-Zionist" (on his User:Mustafaa). Thus both Mustafaa and Gilgamesh are heavily self-admited POV and therefore whatever they say pertaining to Hebrew, Israel and Jewish issues and topics should be regarded as self-serving POV. IZAK 04:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone says: Pardon me, but using "Mormons" in such a matter is not only pejorative, but in this case it is also an incendiary slur. I will kindly ask you never to say such a slur again. Ever. (It's also possible you didn't know it was a slur, but please stop nonetheless.) Additionally, any attempt to stigmatize either of us purely by identity or association is completely invalid as a scientific argument, and is also a personal attack. And don't even try to make any of this about Zionism nor anti-Zionism, neither of which I have any problems with. I demand you cease personal attacks immediately.

Simshalom says: Since "you" did not sign your name to this reaction/objection it cannot be known if what you say here is true or just a joke of sorts. Furthermore, quoting the words that both Gilgamesh and Mustafaa said is helpful regarding POV vs NPOV on the subject at hand, as it gets you thinking about where they are coming from when they write articles about sensitive subjects pertinent to all Jews/Hebrews. (And by the way, most people do not know what "LDS" is, they may think it's a mis-spelling for "LSD" or something, so defining it as Mormons is NOT a slur! So pardon me if that is what you thought). The world at large does not think it is a slur to be called Mormons, and NO more nor less than it is a slur to be called a "Jew". So cool it, whoever you are. IZAK 06:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: Now that really is offensive. You blithely claim that being a "Mormon" automatically implies that "whatever they say pertaining to Hebrew, Israel and Jewish issues and topics should be regarded as self-serving POV"! Ad hominem attacks are merely immature, but ad religionem attacks are actively offensive and should not be tolerated. Imagine if I told you that, because you were a Jew, anything you wrote in Arab-related topics should automatically be assumed to be "self-serving POV"! You owe Gilgamesh a serious apology. - Mustafaa 06:21, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Is this a hydra or what? Does Mustafaa believe what Gilgamesh believes as well? Then the POV problems are truly compounded as they are working in tandem on the Hebrew articles. It is impossible to tell with people speaking at loggerheads. How about if everyone speaks and SIGNS for themselves then one can get a sense of who it is that is saying what and why. Thank you. I still do not see the insult of defining a "LDS" as Mormons. I do not agree to call someone a "saint" merely because that person adopts the title "saint". In Judaism a "saint" is a tzadik in HEBREW and to call oneself a "saint" is both presumptious and arrogant. No-one should take this title. It should be bestowed or earned perhaps. IZAK 07:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nyh says: What annoys me most about this discussion is that for addmitedly religious, not encyclopedic or even linguistics, Gilgamesh and Mustafa are causing the Hebrew language article to drift farther and farther from the modern realitity and pure information, and more and more into historical religious information that the vast majority of humanity doesn't share. There is one Hebrew language, just like there is one English language and one Greek language. The former, exactly like the latter, had a number of historical dialiects, some of more important and some less important, but none of them are spoken today. the "XXX language" article should be about the current, modern language XXX. ISO has standards for these language names, these languages are spoken by millions of people in certain countries, and so on. The "XXX language" articles should mention the history of the language, but should write on the XXX language from the perspective of a living language, not as a perverted dialect of a "holy" language that used to exist. The fact that Mustafa and Gilgamesh appear to hold some religious view of "Abrahamic religion" making certain ancient dialects remotely similar to classical Hebrew, doesn't make this a topic worth mentioning on the "Hebrew language" page, except as see also, or on a separate "Ancient Hebrew" or "Ancient dialects of Hebrew" etc.. IZAK's talk about the one and only Hebrew being holy is also irrevant. I also join Izak's bemusement in the fact of Gilgamesh and Mustafa insist of using terms like "canaanite", "abrahamic" and worst of all, "hebrew languages". If you know languages like Hebrew, Arabic and Arameic, you'll see immediately how close these languages are, and how obvious they are from one family, called the Semitic languages. All the languages you mention (Edomite, Moavite, etc.) were probably even closer to Hebrew than the modern Arabic and Arameic, and perhaps even close enough to be mutually inteligable, but nevertheless these languages traditionally have different names, just like Spanish and Portugese, or Danish and Norwegian, have different names. Calling Adomite a "Hebrew language" is just as strange (in the context of an encyclopedia, which is meant to explain, not to confuse), as calling the Portugese language a "Spanish Language". I also suggested to Mustafa and Gilgamesh to look at all the pages that already link to Hebrew language, and see what the linkers expected that page to explain - the existing language that the whole world calls Hebrew, or a group of languages dead for at least 2500 years that are somewhat related to that language. The silliest thing is that I have been speeking Hebrew all my life, and until a week ago I never even heard the concept of "Hebrew languages" in plural. It may be a useful concept, but not in the Hebrew language article... Nyh 14:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Nyh, you bring up and excellent point and I wish I had thought about it before... "Hebrew languages" does seem like a good place to put the article, and considering that it was intended as a category, it would fit well with other language family articles. I never wished to marginalize Modern Hebrew, and I felt it unfair that other languages weren't well addressed. I suppose I just never thought in terms of the plural. - Gilgamesh 17:22, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg says: Excellent points, nyh Jayjg 19:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: It should be noted that Gilagamesh seems to have an agenda to "cut down to size" the status of the vibrant modern Hebrew language as Gilgamesh states on Talk:Modern Hebrew language : ..."Also, to say that the default assumed form of Hebrew is Israeli Hebrew is pro-Israel POV. I'm not anti-Israel (I'm a LDS Ephrathite), but Hebrew is regarded just as important as a historical and religious language as it is regarded as a modern vernacular. Hebrew is rich in history, and rich in heritage to Abrahamic religions alike, and some of us felt that the previous Hebrew article focused too much on only the Modern Israeli dialect, and was too uncomfortably monolithic to edit to reflect the greater variety of Hebrew that exists and has existed."... ...Is this not an attempt to minimise an important article about a current language spoken by millions of Jews in Israel by "drowning it" in academic gobbledygook that it's part of umpteen old defunct basically un-knowable "Canaanite" languages? IZAK 02:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Woggly says: Hi - could someone explain the argument to me, please? I've read through quite a bit of what is up here, as well as some of what is up on IZAK's talk page, and by now I am confused. I don't want to step into the argument without understanding it completely. Here is my impression of the facts up to now, please correct me if I have misunderstood something:
Users are attempting to create categories for different groups or families of languages, including Hebrew. Mustafaa and Gilgamesh are utilizing as a classification tool, a "tree" of languages which has been drawn up by linguists and is agreed upon in the academic world  according to the aformentioned tree, Hebrew is a Canaanite language (as English is a Germanic language) and Canaanite languages are Semitic languages (as Germanic languages are Indo-European languages)
IZAK takes objection to the use of this tree
IZAK's reason for objection is that it implies that Hebrew evolved from earlier languages, which contradicts the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel
IZAK is suggesting an alternative method of categorization
The classification method preferred by IZAK is ... [this is still unclear to me, please help me out]
Thanks, --Woggly 14:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: As I understand it, there are two issues in question here:
Is Hebrew a Canaanite language?
Are Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite Hebrew languages?
The former point is supported unanimously by linguists. "Canaanite" in this context is a technical term referring to the close relationship of the languages of the area traditionally called Canaan, and should not be confused with any Biblical or other issues. The latter appears to be partly a theological issue based on the interpretation of the word "Hebrew"; I offer no opinions as to the theologically correct interpretation of Ivri, but as regards the linguistics of it, I can attest that the southern Canaanite languages are more closely related to each other than to the northern Canaanite ones, and Moabite is quite often seen as a dialect of Hebrew (in the words of Jouon and Muraoka, "The inscription of Mesha, King of Moab... is in a language that does not differ from Hebrew except in minor details.") - Mustafaa 17:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg says: On the one hand, it is pretty widely agreed that Hebrew is one of the Canaanite family of languages. On the other hand, as nyh points out, people looking for an article on the Hebrew language should be presented with an article which discusses it as it exists today, while mentioning the history, and with links to articles discussing historical variants. As for Moabite et al, while certain inscriptions in them may have differed little from Hebrew, that still does not make them Hebrew in any conventional sense. Rather, they, like Hebrew, are related Canaanite languages. Jayjg 19:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: It should be noted that Mustafaa may have an agenda of reducing the unique status of Hebrew as it is the language of the "Zionists" whom he dislikes as stated by Mustafaa on User:Mustafaa : ..."I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, tragic though it is, is massively overhyped ... and I'm not an expert on Islamic theology, but the persistent tendency of some people to add Islamophobic and anti-Arab propaganda to articles on both those topics is a real danger, and one I am often forced to respond to. I should add that I am a proud anti-Zionist of the second type: that is, I advocate the quixotic notion that everybody ought to just get along and live together peacefully..." ...Is Mustafaa as concerned about cultural and academic anti-Semitism in the same way as about "Islamophobic and anti-Arab propaganda" ? IZAK 02:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

jallan says: IZAK's criticisms mostly don't stand up.
From Jewish Encyclopedia: Hebrew language ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=485&letter=H&search=Hebrew ):

In Hebrew literature the term is first met in the Mishnah (Yad. v. 4; Gi?, ix. 8); Biblical writers use the expression "the language of Canaan" (Isa. xix. 18) or "the Jews' language" (II Kings xviii. 26, 28; comp. Isa. xxxvi. 11, 13; Neh. xiii. 24; comp. also the modern use of "Yiddish").
That is, in the Tanakh the spoken language used in writing the Tanakh is called the "language of Canaan" or the "language of the Judaeans". That in the Mishnah it was called ‘Ibrî 'Hebrew' and is still so-called rather than something like Yehûdai or Ysra’elî suggests that had long been the common name from the language, a name which it would not have born if it was not a speech also used by at least some of those, besides Israelites, who were not Israelites yet were classified as Hebrews. It was remembered as being the language of the Hebrews. What exactly "Hebrew" actually means is scope for other articles. That moderns tend to equate Hebrew, Israelite and Jew in old sources confuses the matter.
From the same source:
The Hebrew language might be appropriately called the Israelitish dialect of Canaanitish, a branch of the Semitic Languages spoken in Palestine and in the Phenician colonies. Almost identical with it is Moabitish, as seen in the stele of Mesha (See Moabite Stone). Closely akin to it was Phenician, and in all probability also the languages of Ammon, Edom, and Philistia. The language used in the Zenjirli inscriptions approaches Hebrew closely.
The Jewish Encyclopedia was published from 1901 to 1906. IZAK himself cites from this source though it doesn't indicate in the Eber article much of what IZAK wants to say, notably that Abraham was the "original" Hebrew. A full discussion in this matter, either under Hebrew people or Eber should include various theories. Currently there is much to be done on these two articles which are now very poor (but also much to be done on many other articles).
IZAK rejects longstanding consensus linguistic scholarship in a field where there is very high proportion of Jews. He can do this for himself if he wishes. But attempting to place a fringe linguistic view into Wikipedia articles without both documentation and without indication that it is a minority view is not proper. If he is aware of what he is doing, then he is being dishonest. If he is not aware of standard linguistic findings established for over a century which are based on innumerable studies of Phoenician, Canaanite, and Paleo-Hebrew inscriptions then he should not meddle with articles that present such research. Anyone who cares to can track down Phoenician inscriptions and Canaanite inscriptions and paleo-Hebrew inscriptions and read them and simply see the similarities between them. I've even encountered the suggestion that Punic, Phoenician and Hebrew should not be counted as separate languages but as differing dialects of the same language.
If indeed IZAK wishes to ignore the views of archaelogists and epigraphers and linguists in favor of some Theologians, then he might at least cite those theologians by providing quotes from the Talmud and so forth, which could and should then be included as what is said by the Talmud or what was part of Jewish tradition or Jewish legend (or Christian tradition or legend or Islamic tradition or legend or Samaritan tradition or legend). A secion or entire article about Jewish traditions about the Hebrew language would be quite proper for Wikipedia.
That said, what traditionally people have meant by the Hebrew language is the language of the Tranakh and later forms of that language: Rabbinical Hebrew, Yemanite Hebrew and so forth. After all, that was all what survived. Then modern Hebrew was created. But all these are recognizably Hebrew. All the sub-varieties should, I think, unless one can cite numerous linguists to the contrary, by classified as dialects, as mostly mutually undestandable, especially when written. They are not, I believe, in normal use, considered separate languages.
As to pre-exilic Hebrew, we really have very little beyond the Tanakh. Inscription are sparse, most of them very short, to the point where sholars often purposely avoid even trying to decide whether something is a variety of Hebrew or a non-Hebrew Canaanite dialect, or even Aramaic. That said, Moabite (which provides our longest surviving example) is usually called a separate language. But it is also usually noted as being very little different from normal Biblical Hebrew. Indeed, it is unarguably less different than is the Hebrew of the Book of Job which some think might be Edomite Hebrew. Anyone fluent in standard Classical Hebrew can read the Moabite stone with little or no difficulty, (once translitered into modern Hebrew characters) with far less difficulty than most English-speaking people would have in reading something that was written in broad Scots English dialect (if unfamiliar with that dialect).
Some scholarly classifications can be misleading. For example, it is reasonable to classfy an inscription as written Ammonite Hebrew with the understanding that it means an insciption found in what according to the Tanakh was Ammonite terrority. It is more daring to suggest that there was necessarily one distinct Ammonite Hebrew language or dialect distinct from one variety of Moabite Hebrew from one variety of northern Israelite Hebrew from one variety of Judaean Hebrew ... and so forth. We just don't know.
But back to the main issue:
Does IZAK really believe he can and should unilaterally ignore every Jewish (and non-Jewish) scholar who agrees in general with standard classifications of the Semitic languages, that he can and should suppress anything that disagrees with his own minority POV in an area in which, as far as I can see, he has little knowledge? The statement that only "a few obscure linguists" associate the Hebrew language with Canaanite is like saying only "a few obscure linguists" believe English is associated with the Germanic languages. Both statements are simply not true.
As to what an article on Hebrew should present, Hebrew as it exists today was very much based on Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew has a special status as the language of the Tanakh. Accordingly it does make sense to go into the relationships of Classical Hebrew to other languages in more detail than perhaps might be done with Portuguese or German, to make clear how closely Hebrew and Phoenician are related and to discuss what we know of the development of Biblical Hebrew, comparing it with Ugaritic and Phoenician and so on.
One could write an entire article about how Phoenician texts and Ugaritic texts have aided (and sometimes confused) understanding of the Hebrew text of the tanakh.
This is the Wikipedia. As articles grow pieces can be cut out and made articles or their own or combined in a new article. Indeed some who come to the article may be mostly interested in etymological relationships between Hebrew and other Semeitic languages. Others may want instead a history of varous attempts to revive modern Hebrew, of the different versions of Hebrew, of what changes Modern Hebrew has undergone in its existance.
Perhaps there might be a page entitle Hebrew language, Hebrew dialects, and closely related languages. That's a clumsy title, but it covers exactly the kind of material that a linguist would be likely to want to know about Hebrew. The related languages might be partially covered by discussion and partially be links, links not oly to discussion of the language found in old inscriptions (such a Moabite, Ammonite, and Philistine inscriptions) but also to partially Hebrew languages like Yiddish.
I agree that POV "Abrahamic religion" material mostly doesn't belong here. Especially ISAK's idiosyncratic personal POV version of what really happened doesn't belong here.
jallan 21:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Taking Nyh's good point into consideration, I moved Hebrew language to Hebrew languages, and had an admin assist me in moving Modern Hebrew language back to Hebrew language, with a convenient link to Hebrew languages. I know the debate over whether the other Eberite peoples can be called "Hebrew" will probably continue, though I'm sure we can find a fair and equitable compromise that everyone (except maybe IZAK) can agree to. I still prefer "Hebrew languages" and think that extra notes can be tacked on. But if that should inevitably fail (which I hope not), possibly alternative names are "Hebrew Canaanite languages", "Eberite Canaanite languages"...though I really don't see why we should have to use "Eberite" when "Hebrew" is an established word and both words are identical in Hebrew. Oh and BTW, now that Hebrew languages and Hebrew language are now most definately separate articles and separate (but related) issues of discussion, I think maybe they should have separate talk pages, with "see also" links between the two. :) - Gilgamesh 21:42, 7 July 2004 (UTC)
Jallan, I want you to know that you said it more clearly and more comprehensibly than I could have ever dreamed. I also conceed that in some ways I may have been unclear: I called these languages "Hebrew languages", but I did not necessarily say they were separate languages. In fact, I often said "dialect", and in fact it may be more like a transitional dialect continuum. I was just thinking that Ammonites spoke a language, and Moabites spoke a language, and Israelites spoke a language, Phoenicians spoke a language, etc. etc., and that those languages were theirs, their own. But not necessarily all to themselves. They were not necessarily separate languages, but one can call them languages by more than one name when they have more than one local tradition. Compare other language continua such as Baltic-Finnic languages, where each transitional dialect has a name and is called a language, but has very few difficult differences from their neighbors. - Gilgamesh 0:23, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Danny says: I am still rather amused by this debate, as someone who speaks Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, and who has some background in Akkadian. Obviously, the three languages are related, closely in fact, though they represent different Semitic sub-groupings. For IZAK, anyone who has studied a page of Talmud knows that there is a consonantal shift between Hebrew and Aramaic (shin to tav, zayin to daled, etc. so that Aramaic tora, dehaba = shor and zahav in Hebrew, noting that b/v are interchangeable in Hebrew). I am also quite surprised that we are using biblical legends as reliable genealogies here in attempting to understand the evolution of language. However, given that this is a starting point for the discussion with IZAK, I will throw in my two cents, using that unscientific hypothesis as a given. IZAK: the name Canaanite was picked randomly to designate the geographical area in which these languages were spoken. It is not an indication of their ethnic origin. After all, Canaan was a descendent of Ham, not Shem, so the language(s) of Canaan would not even be Semitic in that context (though we know that all except Hittite were). The especially close proximity of Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomite should not surprise you either if we assume the biblical genealogy: Abraham migrated speaking the language, but Lot, the ancestor of Moab and Ammon, came with him, and they only parted in Canaan. Edomite was spoken by the descendents of Edom, i.e., Esau, himself a grandson of Abraham through Isaac, and brother of Yaakov, i.e., Israel. Why would it bother you that their languages are lumped together as being closer, say, than Aramaic, which split off earlier, or Arabic? Or is the problem simply one of nomenclature, that linguists who use the terminology chose to label Abraham's language Canaanite? Of course, this is assuming that the biblical narrative of descent is correst, something I am loathe to do, but even assuming this, the classification of Moabite and Edomite with Hebrew makes perfect sense. Danny 01:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Danny: You know I am a little saddened that you should automatically reach for the views espoused by those who would tear down all the reliable Jewish texts of the Torah etc. After all, academic scholarship rests upon the availability of coherent "primary texts" and it has always been both the good fortune and misfortune of Judaism that due to it being a faith of and for the "People of the Book" it has both a rich source for its own life of study as well as being a source for those (Like Wellhausen at al) who delight in tearing to shreds and chopping up all that Judaism holds dear, particularly its Hebrew Holy Language. Now, you seek to engage me on my own grounds so to speak, but your words cause you to fall flat on you face! For example:
You say: "I am also quite surprised that we are using biblical legends as reliable genealogies here in attempting to understand the evolution of language." Why use that loaded word "legends". If you think it's all legends then wash the Hebrew language out of your head as it's the language that is inextricably tied up with those so-called "legends". Furthermore, we are not focused on "legends" as on the fact that we have a language before us in the Torah which is Hebrew and it is that language which conveys a reliable message strong enough to endure for 3,500 years, so why should we doubt the contents if we agree that the language is good in itself?
You say: "the name Canaanite was picked randomly to designate the geographical area in which these languages were spoken". Well, I don't for a second believe this. Who exactly did this "random" picking, maybe it was the anti-Zionist Arafat's figurative academic brother-in-law who just "randomly" came up with the idea that Hebrew belongs with the "Cananites"? :-(
You say:"After all, Canaan was a descendent of Ham, not Shem, so the language(s) of Canaan would not even be Semitic in that context". Then this should support my contention that the word "Canaanite" is not just a poor choice but a MISTAKEN choice as well. "Just say no" to Canaanite! And class Hebrew with Semitic languages as it always has been. :-)
You say "Abraham migrated speaking the language, but Lot, the ancestor of Moab and Ammon, came with him, and they only parted in Canaan. Edomite was spoken by the descendents of Edom, i.e., Esau, himself a grandson of Abraham through Isaac, and brother of Yaakov, i.e., Israel. Why would it bother you that their languages are lumped together as being closer, say, than Aramaic, which split off earlier, or Arabic?" My point is that all three: Moab, Ammon, and Edom are dead and gone and as the Wiki articles indicate their languages and cultures are DEAD and gone and are today NOT knowable at all except for a few scratchings in forlorn caves somewhere in the Jordanian and Saudi deserts (maybe). Thus Moab, Ammon, and Edom, while having a link to Abraham are defunct and of no consequence particularly as they left nothing in comparison to the Hebrew Bible of the Jews and they therefore do not merit a posthumous rehabilitation by "linguists" with time on their hands and an anti-Jewish, anti-religious, and even anti-Hebrew and anti-Israel attitude to boot. Shame on them. And yes, Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic are in a class of their own as they are presently living and spoken languages that can be studied and comprehended at the present time.(Aramaic less so, but it's still around).
You say: "Of course, this is assuming that the biblical narrative of descent is correst, something I am loathe to do, but even assuming this, the classification of Moabite and Edomite with Hebrew makes perfect sense." Now, I ask, when you say that you are "loathe" to accept the "biblical narrative" does that not smack of your own very strong POV? As for the "Moabite" and the "Edomite", arch-enemies of the ancient Hebrews, it should not be a surprise then that you are so accepting of them, in spite of their absence from the world stage for over 2,500 years, and welcoming them into a linguistic alliance with the Hebrew that is both false and misleading and as you have said was just plucked out of a hat. IZAK 03:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Wow. All we need now are bleachers and a popcorn stand. This show is free too. - Gilgamesh 03:58, 8 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Gilgamesh:Get real buddy! You cannot trash the Hebrew language and then make jokes about it. IZAK 04:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: Let the fireworks begin! I never thought I'd live to hear someone accused of "rehabilitating" the Moabites... - Mustafaa 04:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Question:Mustafaa tell us little more about your self-confessed "anti-Zionism" (of the "second type", whatever that may mean) as per your User:Mustafaa. Does it not show your POV about the language of the Zionists i.e. Hebrew ? IZAK 04:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: See the anti-Zionism article, unless it's been messed up since I last checked; anti-Zionism of the second sort is advocating a binational one-state solution.  I presume the Encyclopedia Britannica classifies Hebrew as a Canaanite language out of its anti-Zionist bias as well? - Mustafaa 04:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Oh, and will it be a mostly Hebrew or Arabic speaking anti-Zionist/Zionist state? And yes, the British "talking head classes" have sadly had a pro-Arabist outlook from day one. So they strike out on NPOV in a big way. IZAK 05:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Actually, this looks like a good policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Zero personal attacks. Now, this is very wise. We are all Wikipedians, and we must respect each other's right to think. (Just in case it may have seemed ambiguous, I'm going to stop the humor posts too. I didn't have any Advil on hand so I did that instead.) IZAK, an earlier recommendation sounds good: Contribute to an article about theological perceptions of the Hebrew language. Hebrew languages is for science. It's actually very rude and mean to accuse another person of racism, linguistic cleansing, etc. You've accused Mustafaa of being friendly to anti-Semitism, you've accused me of trying to destroy the Hebrew language, and you really need to graciously accept the duty of doing your homework in the NPOV scientific field instead of making this page gigantic. Now, I'm not going to change linguistic information taught in colleges and universities around the world and in Israel. If you truly want to pitch an argument, you must be dispassionate and discuss linguistics in terms of linguistic science, not theology. And when an article concerns theology that overlaps many religious boundaries, you cannot say say some interpretations are "better" or "more correct" than others or that others are "wrong". You must respect every interpretation equally, which is all I've ever tried to do. As of now, we've been going in circles, covering some of the same issues over and over again, and I've noticed a few times that you've claimed that someone has claimed something that they did not. And in this academic discussion page, shouting "scare tactics" and "agenda" and "anti-Semitic" does not help you, it does not help me, it does not help anyone here, and it does not help the article. In fact, I'd venture to say that it borders on trolling and flaming, which is far better suited for Wrestlemania than Wikipedia. Now, I demand that you show us all more respect as scientific researchers, just as we've been very patient for you. Because, like it don't like it, we all have the same right to discuss Tanakh interpretations and to apply empirically attested science to the text of the Tanakh, and nothing is going to take that right away from you, me, nor anyone else, so long as we do it as equals, each of whom has ideas regarded no better and no worse than anyone else's. Period. - Gilgamesh 04:26, 8 July 2004 (UTC)  

A resolution?

Josiah says: Holy Crud, I had no clue that the debates about this subject were so heated. While I do not have a problem with it personally, I can understand why some would be offended by categorizing Hebrew as a Caananite language. However, It should be noted that the Jewish Encylopedia from 1906 does term it this way, on the *Hebrew Language ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=485&letter=H&search=language )] article. Might I suggest the following compromise? A term sometimes used to describe the script used in paleo-hebrew writings, and also other semetic languages from the land of Israel, is sometimes called 'Old Negev'. If a substantial amount of people feel the title needs to be change, perhaps it would be best to change 'Caananite Languages' to 'Old Negev Languages'? What do y'all think?--Josiah 09:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Uniqueness of the Hebrew language according to Judaism
The following are a few sources both from university professors and rabbis on the subject of Hebrew as the Lashon Kakodesh ("Holy Tongue/Language") and why it's important.
Article by Dr. Mayer Gruber, Associate Professor in the Department of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University:  Hebrew is the original language of humanity and the language spoken by God ( http://www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/Languages/Languages_Hebrew_TO/Languages_HebHis_Jacobs/Languages_Hebrew_Theo.htm ) Article by By Alvin I. Schiff, Ph.D., Irving I. Stone Distinguished Professor of Education Azrieli Graduate School, Yeshiva University President, National Center for the Hebrew Language:
Why Hebrew is Fundamental ( http://www.ivrit.org/html/why_hebrew/story_04.html )
Article by Rabbi Bar-Hayim, head of the Makhon Ben Yishai Institute for Tora Research in Jerusalem:  Lashon Haqodesh (Loshon Ha Kodesh) ( http://www.torahlight.com/lashon.html )
Article from Rabbi Michael Taubes' Kehillas Tzemach Dovid, Teaneck, NJ: Learning and Speaking Hebrew ( http://www.tzemachdovid.org/thepracticaltorah/noach.shtml )
Brief article by Rabbi David Bassous of Congregation Etz Ahaim, Highland Park, NJ:The Holiness of Hebrew, Lashon Hakodesh( http://www.benporatyosef.org/etzahaim/halakha/rambam.htm ) :
"Rambam (Maimonides)is of the opinion that there is no intrinsic sanctity in 'Lashon Hakodesh' but rather its sanctity is derived from its lack of vulgar and coarse language. Though he speaks of the "kedushah" of Hebrew (Kedushat Halashon), Rambam does not mean that there is a sacred quality in the language. He uses "kedushah" in the sense of moral restraint, pointing out that Hebrew has avoided coining words for the reproductive organs nor for semen, nor for urination or excretion, excepting in indirect language or for the act of intercourse. Ramban (Nachmanides) however states that Hebrew is a holy language because it was the vehicle used by G-d to create the world and communicate with man, through the Torah. He states that according to Rambam Hebrew should have been only been called the 'modest language' not a Holy Language.... I am of the opinion that this is the same reason why our Rabbis call the language of the Torah "The Sacred Language," because the words of the Torah, and the prophecies, and all words of holiness were all expressed in that language. It is thus the language in which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with His prophets, and with His people. In this tongue He is called by His sacred names. In that tongue He created His world, and called the names shamayim (heavens), eretz (earth) and all that is in them, His angels and all His hosts - he called them all by name. In that language He called the names of the holy ones that are in the earth: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Solomon, and others."


Woggly says: What is going on here is not a civilised debate, it is a farce. I'm sorry to say there is one person responsible for this: IZAK. For IZAK, with whom I have previously attempted to debate on other matters (See Category talk:Jewish mythology), there is one truth only, and that is the truth as laid out in the Tanakh according to his own interpretation. He reads the Bible as literal fact, and regularly ridicules established scientific theories which go against these "facts". He is unwilling to consider any other view of reality, and lumps anyone and anything that disagrees with his opinions together in one camp. Arafat, Darwin, Freud, Gershom Scholem, Martin Buber, Hitler - they are all one and the same to IZAK, as they all promote[d] philosophies destructive to his own beliefs. There are others who share IZAK's opinions, but most of them would not bother wasting time on the internet debating with gentiles, epikoroses (epikoroi?) and women. And I refuse to waste any more of my own time debating with him. --Woggly 06:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S.: I can't believe there's no wikipedia article on Scholem, or Shabtai Zvi for that matter... what an oversight! Or am I not searching correctly?

Simshalom says: Woggly calm down. Debate the facts. All you have done is spewed your own (very angry) stream of consciousness here and it is really not necessary. After all, I am not interfering with areas outside my purvue. I do claim to have some knowledge about Jews and Judaism but I do try my best to maintain a NPOV. So relax! IZAK 07:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Woggly says: Kettle. Pot. Black. --Woggly 08:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah says: With all due respect, IZAK, you generally understand Judaism - but only from your POV. You do not understand Conservative or Karaite POV's, for example.--Josiah 09:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Josiah 'ol buddy, since when does Karaism = Conservative Judaism? The former "swear" by the literal written GODLY-given Torah, and the latter think it's man-made hocus pocus. Or are you just refering to that when it comes down to a figurative "lynch mob" then it is a case of "politics makes for some strange bed-fellows" and in that sense a Karaite will clutch at any straw, as long as all can both take "pot shots" at their "Orthodox" grand-daddy. Present company excluded of course. :-) IZAK 07:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: Hmm... So you're saying that, if someone does not understand A or B, that implies that A and B are the same thing? Explains a lot! ;) - Mustafaa 00:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

jallan says: On :Hebrew is the original language of humanity and the language spoken by God ( http://www.myjewishlearning.com/culture/Languages/Languages_Hebrew_TO/Languages_HebHis_Jacobs/Languages_Hebrew_Theo.htm ): Part of the title has been dishonestly removed by IZAK. As originally titled it reads: "According to Jewish tradition, Hebrew is the original language of humanity and the language spoken by God." In the second part of the article the author is not making POV claims but citing traditions that make such claims, a very important distinction as Wikipedians know. For example, the articles gives three separate interpretations of the Tower of Babel story, only one of which takes the tradition literally and claims that the original language was Hebrew. The other two do not take it literally. The author does not indicate belief in any of these interpretations. In any case the Talmud often gives contradictory explanations and teachings, being intended as a record of what various respected teachers said on various issues rather than a necessarily binding rule, especially in the matter of haggadah.
On Why Hebrew is Fundamental ( http://www.ivrit.org/html/why_hebrew/story_04.html ):
Hebrew was the common everyday language of the Israelite masses from the time they conquered the land of Canaan until the end of the First Commonwealth with the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE.  This suggests the author accepts a theory that Israelites learned the language which later became Hebrew only when they "conquered the land of Canaan". This article actually opposes IZAK's claims.
On Lashon Haqodesh (Loshon Ha Kodesh) ( http://www.torahlight.com/lashon.html ):
Begins with a claim that traces Hebrew back to the creation of Eve at least. But not a single piece of information as to how this relates to archaelogical and epigraphical discoveries. Very weak support. Just normal creationist talk. Won't impress most people. The article itself simply explains, in part, Masoretic pronunciation with great fuss.
On Learning and Speaking Hebrew ( http://www.tzemachdovid.org/thepracticaltorah/noach.shtml )
This begins with the words:  No definitive Halacha LeMa'aseh conclusions should be applied to practical situations based on any of these Shiurim.  The author considers the traditions that follow as not binding and to be used, if at all, with great care.
On The Holiness of Hebrew, Lashon Hakodesh ( http://www.benporatyosef.org/etzahaim/halakha/rambam.htm ):
Rambam claims that there is no inner sanctity in Hebrew. Ramban disagrees. Presumably both opinions are allowed in Judaism.  No strong evidence here that IZAK's claims were ever an integral part of Judaism that would impress anyone but a creationist. That there are many Talmudic legends is well known, many of them contradictory. Belief in them is not binding even on the most orthodox and conservative Jews.   There is the nucleus of a Wikipedia article here on various traditions about special status of the Hebrew language in Rabbinic traditions. But that should not and cannot replace the normal linguistic categorization of Hebrew as a sister language to Phoenician and a daughter language to Canaanite.
IZAK is attempting to replace a universal POV among linguists by a particular Talmudic POV. Instead, if he cares, he should be adding traditional Talmudic traditions identified as Talmudic tradtions to the standard linguistic classification identified as standard linguistic classification. This could either be a separate article with links or part of the same article, depending on spacing and flow, etc. What IZAK seems to miss is that no matter what he does, anyone can later change it or add to it, that his attempts at suppression are doomed to failure, that he can no more inforce his personal POV interpretation of Jewish religion on Wikipedia than he can on the world.  IZAK doesn't understand NPOV at all or is trolling. I think it is time for mediation if IZAK is willing. If not, then perhaps stronger measures.  jallan 09:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah says: I might add that I, a "heretical" Karaite Jew consider this debate a little off-hand. If we want to get technical, the idea that Hebrew is the original language is a tradition associated with the Bible, but is not actually taught in the Bible, IIRC. Because it is a Tradition, it shouldn't be presented as fact simply because other cultures (Christian, Hindu, etc..) have their own Oral Traditions, which are not presented as fact. I, and I'm sure IZAK, would be equally offended if the Christian belief that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic Prophecies was presented as a fact on Wikipedia.--Josiah 09:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Note to User:Jallan: I cannot fathom why you have to resort to talk about "stronger measures" in the context of an open, honest, intellectual debate. Humbly, may I say, that the views I share with you are not "my" views, they are readily shared by the bulk of those who abide by the teachings of the Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, Shulkhan Arukh, and the sages who have faithfully transmitted them for over 3,300 years. You probably know this and I am not "ashamed" of my very thorough Torah guided education. May I add that I also have higher academic degrees from advanced universities (which explains my good English, amongst other things). The quotes that I have cited above are not meant to "trick" anyone, how could anyone when they can click on them as you have. I was asked to cite some sources to explain "where I am coming from" and I have done so using the Internet to some degree. They were not meant as the final or best say on the matter either, just some thoughts to stimulate the discussion/s. If you need further enlightenment that a limited and limiting medium such as Wikipedia cannot provide then as they say in the classics: "Please consult your local Orthodox rabbi" (again, this phrase, of "Please consult your local Orthodox rabbi" was not coined by me, it's a well-used piece of "advice" that should be utilized, especially by people such as yourself who seem so POV and hostile and angry towards that section of Yiddishkeit. ("Judaism").) And that is all I wish to say to you right now, unless you have something positive to say or add to YOU right now. Thank you. IZAK 06:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Danny says: The descent into idiocy continues at breakneck speed. IZAK, are you seriously stating that the only sources that have legitimacy in this discussion are traditional rabbinical homiletics on the Bible or sources that are in accord with them? If so, are you then accusing me of POV violation? Are you seriously contending that Hebrew, the grammer, syntax, and vocabulary of ancient Hebrew cannot be compared with that of Moabite because Moabite is dead and Hebrew survived/was revived? Can we not compare French to Latin either? As someone said above, this is not an article about theology; it is an article about science. It should not be used to make a theological statement. Danny 10:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Danny, poor comparison, Latin is around and is used in the Catholic Church and left a wide literature. "Moabite"? "Edomite"? "Ammonite"? Sound more like names for detergents than languages that left virtually NOTHING. How on Earth can you compare them to Hebrew with its vast ongoing literature (now in secular form as well as the continuation of Hebrew Torah writings) and spoken as well as studied by millions of Jews both now and throughout all time. IZAK 06:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov says : First of all I have to say that it is wrong to use angry words which might be taken as ad Hominem attacks when it is clear that the argument IZAK is presenting is from his personal standpoint of faith. We should all respect each other's personal stands of faith but at the same time gently try to open each-other's eyes to where individual points of faith cannot be presented to the public as fact. Wikipaedia is here for us to report views not monopolise which views get presented. IZAK is guilty of this but he is not the only one and now he is experiencing what it is like to be on the other side. IZAK is a man of deep faith in search of Jewish identity and he has put his faith in certain pillars which though not being the pillars of Jewishness all of us accept are important pillars for him and so we should all be treadding gently around such sensitivity. I do believe IZAK deserves some kind of appologies for hurting his sensibilities. I am also however very sorry to have to state this here, but I have had confirmation that the authentic rabbinic tradition is that the Children of Eber are indeed Hebrews, and Abraham was just as Hebrew as Isaac's & Jacob's Naharaim-Aramean (Aram of the two Nahors) wives. In fact this is a fundamental for Jewish faith since we all declare that our father was a wandering Aramaean meaning Naharaim-Aramea (if this were not the case we couldn't claim a Hebrew birthright). This means that the view that has been presented is not part of the traditional rabbinical "homiletics on the Bible". Secondly the teaching that Hebrew is the original language of the creator and thus also of Eden and the world which has only faithfully been preserved by the Jews is quite a recent rabbinical argument with no Biblical basis. However this idea and the idea that Abraham was the first Hebrew are popular in Protestant circles with a fair ammount published on the internet with regards to them. Thus why not allow a small statement about the existence of these alternative views and the objection to the conventional scientific terminology that circulates as a result. But please also make it clear that this is not the standard orthodox Jewish view which has no objection to scientific process.Zestauferov 15:59, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Zest, thank you, even though I don't agree with all you say. IZAK 06:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: I agree. The different viewpoints should be stated. I never contested that viewpoints shouldn't be represented. There is already a neat section for that. What I objected to were the initial spree of edits destroying the established classification systems, the attempts to destroy the reverts, and then accusing people of nasty things when they disagree with. IZAK could be a very useful part of this conversation if he could dump the inflated pride, the personal attacks, and the vitriolic responses. He needs to respect us, all of us. I was never opposed to respecting him either. But when he doesn't respect us, and doesn't want to, and resorts to hurtful contempt and McCarthyistic attacks of association, then how on earth are we supposed to be able to respect him as another editor? It's made this place a living hell, which it should not be, nor should it ever have been. Zestauferov, I should let you know that I think you have been nothing but reasonable and diplomatic. I always thought I was trying to be reasonable, and to respect his religious and ethnic distinctions, just as I expected him to respect mine. But he hasn't respected mine, nor anyone else's here. I know this because we all have developed terrible headaches. - Gilgamesh 20:41, 8 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Gilgamesh: On a technical point relating to "Categories". You have "double listed" the Hebrew language pages (out of too much "zeal" perhaps?). For example, it is enough to have, for example, Modern Hebrew language belonging ONLY to Category:Hebrew language because (according to you at any rate)on the Category:Hebrew language page it is then listed as a sub-category of Category:Canaanite languages. So one should not "double-dip" by creating redundant categorizations (whoever is doing it). Get what I mean? There is a similar problem with most of the Christian Bible categories that have both Category:Old Testament books and Category:Christian texts on them which is redundent. Those pages should only have Category:Old Testament books and then on the Category:Old Testament books page it should have that as a sub-category to Category:Christian texts. I have tried to avoid these problems when categorizing the similar, yet obviously religiously different, Category:Jewish texts as the main category and then the sub-categories are Category:Torah, Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and others. IZAK 05:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh says: Pardon me, but is it really necessary to write everything in bold? Anyway, this is linguistic classification systems, not the Wikipedia categories. As for the categories, there are two because Canaanite languages are a linguistic classification, while Hebrew is an association. Mustafaa and I were discussing how later non-Canaanite languages spoken by Jews and Samaritans could be categorized under Hebrew language, such as Judeo-Aramaic language, Samaritan Aramaic language, Karaim language, Yevanic language, Judeo-Arabic language, Ladino language, Yiddish language, etc. Hebrew languages in Canaan, distinctly Samaritan languages, distinctly Jewish languages, etc. But that would need a bit more discussion first before anyone does anything. - Gilgamesh 08:50, 9 July 2004 (UTC)

Frikle says: OK, I haven't read the whole debate in its immense verbiage but I think that we need to remember that a potential extension of the NPOV policy is that, if there are significant disagreements within the world, then that should be presented without stating one of the sides as a fact. From what I've seen, one of the issues is whether Hebrew is a Canaanite language. This is certainly stated in the article. However, the case is not that Hebrew IS a Canaanite language, rather, it is CLASSIFIED as one. I think the dispute can be tempered by stating that it is "classified by Modern Linguists as" a Canaanite language. And the fact that a large number of people who speak the modern Hebrew language disagree with this should certainly be mentioned. However, anything more seems overkill. The same could be done for the other related pages - simply state both sides as referring to either a secular classification or otherwise and leave it. We shouldn't be trying to develop new theories and scholarship here. The question might be asked whether it's legitimate to include a religious viewpoint on a "scientific" article. But, even an almost totally scientific article (such as evolution) should have reference to an opposing POV, even if it forms a small bulk of the article. For Hebrew, we simply don't know whether most people are interested in secular linguistics or cultural references. Because it's likely that the article will be read by both information-seekers, I think we should include (at least references to) both points of view. Frikle 03:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reconciliation.

Gilgamesh says: Anyone can argue, and a few can compromise, but sometimes it takes a lot to reconcile. IZAK, I never intended insult to your personal religious convictions, but I know it may have seemed that way. So I want to apologize for doing anything to offend you, especially those humor posts which tried to deflect my headaches. We must work together to make these articles better. So, a truce: I try my best not to do anything to knock your theology or identity nor to appear as if I'm doing so, and I beg of you to respect my unending personal attempts at NPOV as well as my personal religious convictions and my right to believe myself as part of Ephraim, just as you believe yourself as part of Judah. You don't have to agree with me, but we must respect each other's personal POV, including sacred theologies and personal convictions, as we respect all our neighbors on Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 00:45, 10 July 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Gilgamesh: I was away for a few days. I too am sorry to have said things in ways that may have felt prickly to you. I really do not think anyone owes anyone else apologies, so I am surprized to even read about it here, as Wikipedia is a forum for scholarly discussions (both indirectly via edits and directly on talk pages). So yes, we can both agree to disagree yet remain civil about it. You must understand that there is also a notion called the objective TRUTH which classical Judaism believes exists and to which I do subscribe (after all the Torah is called Torat Emet, the "Torah of Truth") and I do believe that Wikipedia, being a human project is subject to errors and many falsehoods, misconceptions, distortions, fantasies, and misrepresentations of the truth which I come across all the time the more I read on, on the very subjects of Jews and Judaism, Israel and Zionism etc. "You" and "I" cannot decide questions concerning the Jewish faith (or the Hebrew language for that matter) just to "get along". That is why Judaism and Christianity (of whatever variety) are DIFFERENT even opposing and opposite religions that can never be "reconciled". "Never the 'twain shall meet" no matter how much "huffing and puffing" there may be taking place. Just get over it. There are deeper issues at work when discussing questions pertaining to Jews and Judaism that will never allow for "consensus" no matter how hard "we" or "anyone" else tries, as these matters are ultimately of a Divine nature, and are of the domain belonging to the one true God (and not to "all" the "gods" Wikipedia has given the opportunity to proliferate on its site). So let us continue to do the impossible as we tip-toe forwards, trying to do a "balancing act" in order to arrive at the truth as we traverse mountains and oceans full of lies. Wikipedia and truth may one day be synonymous, if only enough people will so desire it to be ! IZAK 15:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- posted by Izak @ 12:07 AM (0) comments

 
Debate between SIMSHALOM and those who want to class Jewish mysticism and even Judaism as part of "MYTHOLOGY"
On Wikipedia:
 
(Please read  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License  if you use this material. Thank you.)

Category:Jewish mythology

Simshalom says:
"Category:Jewish mythology" seeks to arbitrarily decide that Jewish beliefs and much that Judaism holds dear, such as belief in God falls under "Jewish mythology". This is most offensive and an insult to Judaism. "Jewish mythology" may be a legitimate subject for separate DISCUSSION and there are views on it, but it cannot be the chief heading for subjects and texts related to Judaism. IZAK 03:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wetman says:
It's not the whole category that should be deleted, just the offensive remarks. Would you delete Christian mythology? or Greek mythology? Wetman 03:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
If it's the "main heading" under which all "Jewish beliefs" in Judaism would fall then yes it should be deleted as it would be a false claim. Greek mythology is well known as it's "belief" system was based on it. I am not sure about Christianity, don't they believe in the truth of the Bible? As for Judaism, its inner-workings are not based on "myths" , but rather on the laws of the Torah (Bible) and Jewish Law Halakha, unless you say that the Bible is a "myth" and in that case you are being contentious. Would one also talk about "Athiest mythology" or "Secular mythology" or "Scientific mythology" such as "evolution" or that there is "life in outer space" and on and on...so why subject Judaism to something so alien to its nature??? IZAK 04:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uther says:
No one is saying that the Torah is a myth. However, it contains both myths (stories to explain the mysteries of the universe, such as its creation) and laws (rules describing how to be a member of the tribe). These are not incompatible items; all religions are composed of such collections, whether they are collected in written form (Judaism being the first major religion of this type) or collected in oral form. - UtherSRG 12:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
You seem to miss the point that the word "myths" also strongly implies "NOT TRUE" as in "Fairy Tales", whereas "mystical" implies something on the level of extremely "secret" and "incomprehensible" allowing room for it to be as true and real as the "laws" which are not "rules" for "membership", but are rather manifestations of a bond or "covenant" between the ones who observes the laws and the One who commanded theme, which makes it part of Judaism. There is thus a need to be careful of understanding how the Jewish faith itself has always perceived these matters rather than falling victim to a categorization process that may be true for other genuine myths, such as the polytheistic Greek and Roman ones, in contradistinction to the monotheistic Jewish ones. Quite a difference. And it would be unfair to fuzz the picture. IZAK 09:01, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uther says:
You seem to be missing the point, so I'll be more explicit. I'd be equally supportive of Category:Christian mythology for the parts of the religion which fit the definition of mythology - stories to explain the mysteries of the universe. No matter how much anyone believes them to be true, that the creation stories in the Torah are mythological; they are parables; they are poetic license. This doesn't remove any power that those stories have. Creation in six days and then a day of rest? Great story which comes as pre-emphasis of the law later on in the Torah. The law is the law. The story is mythology. - UtherSRG 15:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rephrasing: The law is what you must do in the religion. The stories underlying the law are the mythology. - UtherSRG 15:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Wrong! This is not about "equal opportunity intellectual distortion/s". It's more straightforward than that. The "stories" are not the mythology at all, they are true facts, how can you argue with a Torah text accepted for thousands of years by billions of people? A few secular intellectuals' poor arguments is not sufficient to class Abraham, Moses (and even ol' Pharaoh) et al "into the Nile" of "mythology" just because they don't grasp the notions. You ask jokingly: "Creation in six days and then a day of rest?", and the answer is YES, not just Jews but most Christians and Moslems accept that too, ever heard of the the Sabbath days of Jews, Christians, and Moslems? That makes about four BILLION people...not bad for a book of "fables"...and how many people really believe the scientific myths that people evolved from amoebas and apes?: Did you or anyone else witness that? All the poor scientists can do is go digging for some old rotten bones in some miserable desert to dig up little itty-bitty shards of dog bones and say looky here, we got us an "ape-man"...if you go with that, and think that that is NOT evolutionary mythmaking in action as seen right now, then I'll just be happy to smile and tell you: Silly boy! There are no people coming out of monkeys, they come out of ladies wombs... So please, leave the theology to the theologians. IZAK 18:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Uther says:
Again, I'm not saying the stories aren't true. They are obvious true for you and many other people. Just as the ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians, and modern Christians and Muslims have stories they they know for absolutely certain that they are true, so too do Jews have stories they know for certain are absolutley true. Perhaps you are just arguing my semantics, and don't like "stories". My apologies if that's all it is. Mythology, by definition, is that part of religion that is the explanation of the mysteries of the universe. It's not the entirety of the religion, but it is a central part of all religions. Another part of religion are those acts that are required, allowed, or prohibited. These are generally called laws by the religion. The laws and the mythology combined make up (at least in part) of the beliefs - a person believes they must do/not do/may do certain acts, because of the explanation of the mysteries of the universe underlying the religion. (And by the way, I'm a Jew.) And let's not lower ourselves to name calling ("Silly boy") ok? - UtherSRG 18:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) Furthermore (again), your same diatribe can be said of any religion - how can you not believe in the Greek Gods? Countless Greeks believed in them for ages and ages!. Was it more people/longer time than those who've believed in the words of the Torah? I don't know, and neither do you, so your numerical argument is not valid. the number of belivers/amount of time vested in the religion is a logical fallacy. - UtherSRG 18:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Hi again SRG:The ancient Greeks and their beliefs are long dead, so what they said is a moot point really. The question at hand is about correct definitions about Judaism. Again, Judaism cannot be defined as starting with "myths" or "mythology" as those two words, whilst they may seem innocuous to you and some others, are actually interpreted by most people in the common sense of "fairy tales" such as stories about "Snow White & the 7 dwarfs" or "Peter Pan and Wendy" and to use this type of "axiom" as a starting point for a category such as Judaism is just plain downright silly! Judaism can only be defined, and correctly described and explained by FIRSTLY using its own classes of very abundant definitions available through its texts and teachings which are not restricted. Only after one has made that presentation and categorization ONLY then can one SPECULATE and insert one's own academic viewpoints and prejudices and say, for example, "well, as a secular or athiestic or whatever type of person I am, this is how I 'think' or 'imagine' or 'hypothesize' this subject is about". But to do the reverse, by first imposing one's (incorrect) assumptions about what the beginnings of Judaism are about would be to create a false set of axioms which would not be fair to the genuinely curious non-judgmental observer. So it is very logical and rational to say that this is what Judaism ITSELF believes and these are the categories and names Judaism itself uses to define itself, and for over 3,500 years the Torah and its ancilary texts have not fitted into what one calls "mythology". As you say, it may be semantics. But the accurate semantic for "mythology" in Judaism is called mysticism (roughly, Kabbalah) Sadly, there are those (many are Anti-Semitic or anti-religious too) who want to place the actual Torah text/s itself or anything to do with the Bible as being mere "mythology", but that is only a reflection of their own intellectaul short-sightedness and prejudices and in no way does it tell you what the Torah and Bible are actually all about. By the way, I am not trying to be personal, this is only a mature discussion on an important topic. Thanks. IZAK 09:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Person says:
There are no articles in Category:Jewish mythology, so I'm not sure what the problem is. You don't seem to be arguing for deleting the category, but for keeping it distinct from Jewish religious beliefs, which appear to be currently at Category:Judaism. Thus, things are currently the way you apparently want them to be. I'll add Golem to Category:Jewish mythology, as this is mentioned at Jewish mythology as being mythological folklore. Please take further dicussion to Category talk:Jewish mythology unless you wish to propose the category for deletion.

Tuf-Kat says:
Though it is off-topic, mythology does not denote falsehood, and both the Torah and the Bible are part of Jewish and Christian mythology. There is an article on scientific mythology, and very well could be a category on it in the future too. I don't know if there is any scholarly study of atheist mythology or secular mythology, but both ideas certainly exist (i.e. mythology important to the lives of atheistic and secular people and institutions, respectively). Tuf-Kat 06:51, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Eisnel says:
I agree, from Merriam-Webster: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. - Eisnel 12:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pedro says:
delete. -Pedro 19:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Drop says:
keep. I agree with Tuf-kat, I don't propose that any of the articles primarily related to the Jewish faith be put in that category, but there are Jewish mythologies, such as the Golem. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:54, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Uther says:
Keep. Golem. Dybbuk. Etc. - UtherSRG 23:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, the descriptions at mythology and mysticism support the notion to keep both Category:Jewish mythology and Category:Jewish mysticism. What seems to be the stumbling block is that Judaism is the first major religion whose mythology is based upon a written text and not simply on oral retellings, and that the writings are considered sacred. (I say this as someone raised Jewish and who still feels an affinity to the religion.) To attempt a succinct comparison: Mythology is the collection of stories explaining the mysteries of universe, while mysticism is the direct experience of those mysteries. Over time, stories of mysticism may become entwined into that culture's mythology. - UtherSRG 12:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sean says:
Keep, for reasons already stated. Note that Christian mythology needs some cleanup. -Sean Curtin 02:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

JFW says:
Delete. Most "mythology" originates from Talmud, Midrash and Kabbalistic works, and should maximally belong to mysticism. Any knowledge of Golems and Dybbukim will reveal that the topics are tightly interwoven with mysticism, while Judaism lacks an easily delineable mythology. JFW T@lk 08:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Person says:
Keep, for reasons above. If someone does use it to suggest that Judaism is imaginary, then for shame, that's not what it's for, edit offending parts from article. It's just as valid as Christian Mythology. And if saying that the bible is myth is contentious, then what is it to say that the bible is "law"?

Quadell says:
Keep. Quadell (talk) 20:24, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Solution: There is really no way to solve this dilemma, thus a new sub-category has been created called Category:Jewish history where Category:Jewish mythology can live happily without worry as it is an ongoing subject of debate in Jewish history between the pro-mythology school of thought versus the pro-mysticism school of thought. And in turn, all can agree that the material for both is drawn from the main Category:Judaism one way or another. Is this Solomonic or what? :-) IZAK 07:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Related to the above issue is the discussion taking place at Category talk:Jewish mysticism: IZAK 03:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

JFW says:
"Someone with some knowledge of modern day Orthodox Judaism can confirm that mysticism has a much greater relevance to religious life than just being a subcategory of Jewish mythology. The two are wildly different from each other. Mysticism permeates many laws and customs, from the ritual handwashing upon awakening to the bedtime prayers (and everything in between). This has been raised by User:IZAK before, and I believe that he has considered requesting arbitration on this.
Please discuss any planned changes here before making them. An edit war on this issue would be too ridiculous for words. JFW T@lk 19:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
I concur with JFW T@lk completely in this case. Jewish mysticism is an inherent part of large parts of Sephardic Jews and of all Hasidic Judaism Jews as they follow the teachings of some of the greatest rabbis respected by ALL Jews. Thus, Sephardic Jews have incorporated readings from the main mystical text the Zohar into their prayers and rituals ( and they are NOT believers in "mythology"), and all Hasidic Judaism Jews study mystical texts because the Baal Shem Tov, the father of Hasidism was a MYSTIC, but he was NOT a "mythologist" being neither a teacher of "myths" nor attracting or encouraging "mythologists". Hence, MYSTICISM is most certainly part of Judaism whereas mythology is a perjorative term applied by CRITICS of Judaism to denigrate that faith's true teachings. Similarly, the famous Rabbi Joseph Karo the author of the Shulkhan Arukh which is the pillar of Jewish Law known as halakha was at the same time also a MYSTIC and sought out the teachings of the greatest mystic of his time Rabbi Isaac Luria. Neither of these great Jewish sages were in any way shape size or form devotees of "mythology", on the contrary, they were classical rabbis who knew that Judaism incorporates in it whole strata of mysticism such as in the Kabbalah, but none of this has anything to do with SECULAR or non-religious notions of "mythology" which is often times just a code-word for mocking religion's "na`iveties" or "primitive beliefs". Please note that Judaism actually FORBIDS belief in such things as Greek mythology, Roman mythology, and Norse mythology (the greatest and best known mythologies in the West) because of the MULTIPLE DEITIES and IMMORAL BEHAVIOR of so many of the so-called mythological gods who are very far removed from the God that Jews have always worshipped rooted in the Torah and the Monotheism at its core defined by the Ten Commandments which actually FORBIDS recognizing the mythological gods. The point should be clear, Judaism embraces mysticism, (even though it may have its own debates about it), whereas Judaism totally REJECTS mythology of any kind. Judaism and mythology do not belong together anywhere (even though certain writers may have myths they cherish and demons they love and a desire to foist them on the world, when they owe it to be more NPOV and not create a bad environment for classical Judaism as it has been practiced for over 3,000 years).IZAK 09:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

Uther says:
See my "Furthermore" above. Both categories should exist. See mythology and mysticism. - UtherSRG 12:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Badanedwa says:
keep. objection is based on a claim of unique and total validity of beliefs. monitor for standard misojudaic additions. Badanedwa 15:43, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Woggly says:
how about renaming it "Jewish Folklore". --Woggly 08:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Hi Woggly, this is not just a case of "a problem in search of a solution" and so "let's grab something from the Brothers Grimm". Judaism is not just an outgrowth of "folklore" as the subject of Jewish mysticism is interwoven with the classic texts of Jewish law and history. Besides, "folklore" sounds too much like "Old Wives Tales" and that is not what Jewish mysticism is all about. It would be silly to say that the Ten Commandments or the Jewish holidays are just extentions of "folk lore" as it would make absolutely NO logical, ethical or religious sense. It's like saying "space travel to the Moon was instituted to check out if its made of cheese, how it replenishes itself and to find the mice that eat it, and to prove it lets feed some cheese to mice on Earth to show you hwo it's done". No serious logical person would say such a thing at all. So please take pause. IZAK 09:16, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Woggly says:
No offense meant whatsoever, my apologies if I seemed flippant. But I wasn't just pulling that expression out of thin air. Folklore is a valid and serious field of academic study, by no means equal to the dismissive "old wives tales". Of course Ten Commandments and Jewish holidays don't fit under "Jewish folklore", any more than they fit under "Jewish mythology". But I would argue that terms that have been mentioned here, like Golem and Dybbuk (which I myself contributed...) are more appropriately classified as "folklore" than as "mythology" or even "mysticism". There is a very rich tradition of Jewish folklore, that made its way into the fiction of such authors as Isaac Bashevis Singer, Sholom Aleichem and S. Ansky. Obviously some Jewish legends have serious mystical religious implications, but many of them have an important cultural and/or literary component that isn't necessarily tied to belief or to history or to mysticism: the story of the Golem, among other things, is also simply a cracker-jack story. I don't see why using the word "folklore" in this context is offensive. "Jewish folklore", in my mind, should be a subcategory under "Judaism", possibly under "Jewish oral tradition" or "Jewish literature", and seperate categories should exist for "Jewish history", "Jewish religion", "Jewish law" and perhaps "Jewish philosophy" and "Jewish mysticism"; whereas "Jewish mythology", to my ears, is a very odd phrase, and something of an oxymoron. --Woggly 12:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Hi Woggly:Listen, you are behind the times. Take a look at Category:Jews and Judaism and you will find many of the categories you mentioned already there either as main categories or sub-categories. Even Category:Jewish mythology has been there all the time. There is Category:Judaism for "Jewish religion". There is Category:Jewish mysticism. There is very extensive Category:Jewish history. There is Category:Rabbis and many more for Category:Israel and Zionism. Also Category:Jewish law and rituals for "Jewish law and traditions". So don't worry about that. The Yiddish writers you mentioned such as Singer and Sholom Aleichem are all without exception SECULAR writers who were very hostile to Judaism, yet at the same time they drew on the Torah teachings of their youth and perverted and twisted and mocked them. They should be placed under "Category:Yiddish writers" where they rightly belong and NOT be taken as "authorities" on Jewish teachings of any sort.They are the LAST people you would want to consult if you wanted to know what Judaism actually is in the first place. For that you must look to the primary sources themselves such as the Torah, Tanakh, Midrash, Talmud, Shulkhan Arukh and more, and to the scholarly rabbis who have been studying and teaching them for thousands of years. Otherwise you are not studying Judaism seriously but you are playing "make believe" with Yiddish writers "ghosting" for Judaism (ah, the start of "folk-lore" I suppose). The story of the golem is most definitely NOT "cracker-jack". Not much is know about it factually, but it's a deeper story than most people realize and it's been studied by many people. Intrigueingly, it's amazing the fascination it holds for those least familiar with normative Judaism. Most educated Jews don't go around thinking of "golems" and "dybuks" and its not taught in any yeshivas or Jewish schools that I know of. It's a very esoteric subject! So cool your heels before you load the dices with all sorts of "folklore" hocus pocus that even you don't take seriously. The original point of this discussion here is that "mythology" should NOT be the main category for the main subjects of Judaism. The general category is Category:Jews and Judaism, including all subjects be they religious or secular as they pertain to Jews of all kinds and to Judaism covering all Jewish beliefs, laws and ideas. IZAK 14:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Woggly says:
My point just went completely over your head. I'm not studying Judaism seriously, nor did I ever claim to, nor do I think that a serious scholar of Judaism should start with Jewish folklore. In fact, I completely agree that Jewish folklore does not belong in Yeshiva studies. But nonetheless it is a legitimate, interesting and important subject for study; and Wikipedia is not a Yeshiva. Perhaps you are willing to toss out the Yiddish writers, I'm not - and they were most definitely Jewish, and could not have grown out of any other culture. I agree that "mythology" is an inappropriate word to use in conjunction with "Jewish": on everything else, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. --Woggly 16:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Okay Woggly, You just inspired me. I went ahead and created Category:Yiddish writers and put the three writers you mentioned into it. It's a sub-category of Category:Ashkenazi Jews (as Yiddish was the language of the Ashkenazi Jews only) which is a sub-category of Category:Jews which is a sub-category of Category:Jews and Judaism. See, things have been movin' along... Oh and by the way, maybe Category:Yiddish writers would be a great place to put in sub-categories about stuff like "mythology" and "folk lore" as they (the Yiddish writers) are the ones who created the whole interest in this area through their writings. No-one else cares much. IZAK 14:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf says:
My personal feeling is that either all religious categories involving stories about god or gods and other supernatural beings should be under the label of mythology, or none of them should, and so "Greek mythology" should then be renamed to "Ancient Greek religion." The only difference between ancient "mythologies" and modern "religions" is that the former are no longer practiced today. Both include stories about supernatural beings and events, and both involve rituals, worldviews, and moral systems. While I understand the popular connotation of "myth" as "false," academically speaking, there shouldn't be any separation or difference in truth value between long-abandoned and presently held religious beliefs. In response to the comment above about why shouldn't there be categories for "Atheist mythology" or "Scientific mythology" is that there simply are no such things. The relevant definition of "myth" is "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society." Atheistic worldviews and science simply have no such body of stories. They are the sole province of religion and folklore. Postdlf 17:21 19 June 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
What you are saying is VERY dangerous indeed. YOU are setting yourself up as the judge of ALL "religions" and you are saying here that the world's greatest and largest religions today: Christianity; Islam; Judaism; Hinduism; should be equated with the mythologies of the defunct Greeks and Romans. I wonder how many people would agree with this? And, makes one wonder how much you really know about today's religions in all their details, and whether you are an athiest or not as far as NPOV is concerned? Furtheremore, when people in science foist "beliefs" and claim that they are "facts" such as that life emerged from amoebas BILLIONS of years ago or that humans (aka "homosapiens") emerged from neanderthal APES MILLIONS of years ago, is that not BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION :"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society." ??? IZAK 17:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf says:
No, you misunderstand entirely. By equating all religions, you have set yourself up as the judge of none of them. As an academic project, wikipedia should not give greater or lesser value to any religion, regardless of whether or not it is still followed by anyone living. That is the only way I see to be truly NPOV about it. I am curious to know what you think I am ignorant of regarding modern religions. Ancient, now-defunct religions had well-developed worldviews regarding morality, the afterlife, and the origin of the world and of humans, as well as complicated rituals and ways of relating to the gods and other supernatural forces. The relevant differences between those religions and modern ones is that the modern ones are still practiced, and so have had an ongoing history of development in which they have continued to adapt to/influence changes in culture, while the defunct ones became frozen in time and known mostly by their sensational stories rather than the way of life they once were for many people.
As for your comment about scientific "beliefs", a couple corrections: amoebas are not considered in any scientific theory to be the first forms of life, but in fact have rather complicated cellular structures and are not billions of years old. Also, neanderthals were neither "apes" nor millions of years old, nor the ancestors of humans. Perhaps you could read the wikipedia articles on both topics. But the main point on that topic is that you did not read the definition very closely (or at all?)—the scientific theories of abiotic genesis and evolution are hardly ancient (though modern evolution did admittedly have some precursor concepts among the ancient Greeks), nor are they stories, nor do they deal with "supernatural" anything, let alone ancestors or heroes. The only part of the definition that fits is "explaining aspects of the natural world." Nothing else applies to scientific theories. Furthermore, any article on a scientific theory, whether evolution or gravity, should be labelled as such, and the evidence/reasoning behind it explained. Postdlf 15:53 21 June 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
So could you please explain why Wikipedia has MAJOR Category:Religion at all ???!!! And what are your naughty "plans" for it? Throw all the live major world religions, especially the monotheistic ones with billions of followers and believers into the dustbin of history with all the dead mythologies that worshiped mutiple imaginary mythological gods? Do you think Wikipedia should reflect what billions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus believe, study and worship, or are you paternalistic about all religions and hold that people of faith have not reached the "age of wikification" yet? IZAK 06:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf says:
Like I said, the only way to be truly even-handed is to classify all religions the same, however that is done. Keep in mind that many supposedly dead, ancient "mythologies" still have modern practitioners, and many scholars believe that the monotheistic religions developed culturally out of polytheistic ones as well. My impression, however, is that you do not wish to be so even-handed, but would rather separate out monotheism as something special from the "imaginary" polytheisms (most forms of Hinduism worship multiple gods, btw). I'm wondering how, academically—from an objective position outside any particular faith, you can declare any gods imaginary and others not. I would think objectively you could only say who believes what about whom when it comes to religious figures. If you are not trying to be objective, then I'm afraid this discussion is at an end, for this is not the forum for arguing that any religion is better than others. Postdlf 12:45 22 June 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:
Yes I am aware that Hinduism worships multiple deities, however I was citing it as an example of a major world religion with about a billion followers, who are also deserving of some careful descriptions and explanations of their faith without it being mangled by second-hand half-wit interpretations on Wikipedia or anywhere else. As for Christianity (with about two billion followers) and Islam (with about one billion), that makes for a total of about four billion people out of Earth's six billion people, that's two thirds of the human race encompassed by those three faiths, which should translate into very substantial descriptions and explanations at Wikipedia about them for those inclined to do so accurately and with NPOV. As for Judaism, it has only 13 million adherents today but it is the key to both Christianity and Islam making it important out of proportion to its size. Judaism itself can withstand any manner of pure scientific analysis and reasoning as it is a religion based on both faith and reason. Contrary to what some may think, Judaism did not evolve out of the "mists" of the past a la the supposed evolution of the human race from orangutans. Judaism is a logical, rational, scientific system that is rooted in the here and now as much as it has spiritual roots. It is certainly not a result of a process akin to the origins of the "mythologies" of other belief systems. IZAK 05:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AndyL says:
Keep but rename. How about "Jewish folklore"?AndyL 21:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- posted by Izak @ 5:10 AM (0) comments