Great thread - thanks for starting this.
I do have one question I never fully looked into . Why, under Jewish law today, is Jewish identity based upon lineage through the maternal line when in the Hebrew scriptures it is based upon paternal descent? (I’ve heard/read it has something to do with the inability to reliably trace paternal descent during Roman times, but I’m trying to understand the scriptural and theological basis for the switch).
Also, per your description of Jewish identity, that would cover all Jews who meet this criteria born of a Jewish mother regardless of actual belief. This is commonly believed to therefore include agnostics and athiests - but of some controversial debate these days, would not include Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah (even those who identify themselves as messianic jews)? I’d be curious to your reaction to that issue.
Many thanks,
Brian
I’m going to try to answer the first question, and then the second.
In earlier Jewish history, religious status was determined by what the father of the child was. This is how King David and King Solomon could have had wives who were not Jewish, yet their children were Jewish.
In the time of Ezra (later prophet), it was determined that religious status was now determined by what the mother of the child is…this rabbinical ruling is rooted in the Book of Ezra, in the Bible…where Ezra mourned because the Israelite men had taken nonJewish wives.
He ordered them to “put away your heathen wives
and their children”. The rabbis reasoned that Ezra would not have told them to put away their wives
and their children, unless the children were also not Jewish.
(PERSONALLY speaking, I have always felt that a person should be accepted as a Jew as long as ONE parent is Jewish, since in Jewish history we have precedent for both views.)
As to your next question: this is going to be hard for a nonJew to understand, and I’ll try to explain it as best as I can.
In Judaism, actions are very important. Inaction is not seen as being the same as action. This especially applies to idolatry and religious changes. In traditional Judaism, one of the greatest sins a Jew can ever commit is idolatry, or worshipping another God other than the God of Israel. In fact a Jew is supposed to die rather than worship another god or join another religion. A Jew who does not believe in anything and stays within the fold of the Jewish people, is not seen as doing anything to remove himself from his people.
His position is regrettable and deplorable, but is not seen as being as bad as one who actively negates the Covenant by removing himself to worship another deity or join another religion.
And so, a Jew who takes action to go outside of Judaism, and adopt another religion or belief, IS seen as “doing something actively” to violate the Covenant.
I know this sounds crazy…that a Jew can remain within the fold even if he does not believe in God, or is not religious…but this is because he has not openly and actively rejected the Covenant. His INaction is not seen as being a public statement in the way a Jew who ACTIVELY goes outside the fold is perceived.
(I realize that to Christians, Christianity is seen as “the fulfillment of Judaism”, “not idolatry”, etc. I am presenting this to you the way JEWISH LAW sees it, and to us, adopting Christian belief is negating the Covenant at Sinai, and adopting another religion.)
sometimes it is.