Talk:Matrilineality

Some discussion

On current opinions among historians: I am defining a "historian" (perhaps "mainstream historian" was considered to be offensive) as one who follows historical procedures standard in academia (as opposed to a scholar who bases his statements on revelation).

Shaye Cohen (a) claims nothing about the Conservative movement, (b) is not making any claims that are not generally accepted by his colleagues at this stage. Rather, the relevant fact here is that he has expressed these views within the pages of "Conservative Judaism", the main review of the eponymous movement, and that these views seem to have been accepted by at least some Conservative Rabbis; see http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_matri_descent.htm In general, the Conservative movement seems to follow what is seen as history by academia, though there was some confusion in the period of conflict immediately following the 1982 Reform decision. Note that the acceptance by (part of?) the Conservative movement of (a certain version of?) history does not imply that the Conservative movement will change its laws, or sees itself as being obligated to change them.

Who is Shaye Cohen?

I don't think the Conservative Movement is basing its acceptance of patrilineal descent solely on the views of unnamed historians.

I have rephrased some sections and included the actual Mishaic reference. The Talmud quote will follow when I've got access to it. If necessary I will supplement this with references to the Mishneh Torah and Shulkhan Arukh, but I think this will do.

You're encouraged to get a username! JFW | T@lk 18:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(a) Shaye Cohen is a historian and a professor at Harvard. this is not true (b) Your edit is incorrect: no "fraction" of the Conservative movement accepts patrilineal descent. Rather, the Conservative movement large and by accepts the current consensus among academic historians, namely, that patrilineal descent was once the norm. (c) The way things are currently written, it is implied that the Orthodox view is the "objective" or normative one, and that some people simply disagree. This is similar to having creationism be stated as the current scientific consensus under "evolution", and having a couple of sentence on Darwin and other dissidents at the end. (d) I'll get a username, and conduct some further edits, when I have the time, but, frankly, I am getting a bit tired.

You can't just make claims, you need to provide sources for them as well. For example, how do you know that "the Conservative movement large and by accepts the current consensus among academic historians, namely, that patrilineal descent was once the norm."? Is this referenced somewhere? Was a poll taken? The opinion of one Rabbi is not necessarily the same as that of the movement as a whole. Also, putting the traditional view first does not imply that it is correct, and the article has ample differing views presented fairly, which is NPOV. Jayjg 19:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Orthodox view has been normative for literally thousands of years until someone decided that it "wasn't correct". The way you make it sound, the historians are correct and the Orthodox are fossils.

If you can provide a reference, then Prof Cohen is most welcome to be cited. JFW | T@lk 21:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(1) Jayjg: I will look into the matter of Conservative Rabbis' views of history. However, I should make clear that the Conservative movement does not have a view on how to ascertain the past different from that of academic historians. This is, in fact, one of the definitional characteristics of Conservative Judaism. If something is generally accepted by the historical community outside Conservative Judaism, it becomes accepted by Conservative Judaism. Professor Cohen's opinions were published, not only in his book "The Origins of Jewishness" and various scholarly journals, but also in Conservative Judaism, the flagship publication of, well, Conservative Judaism. There was not, as far as I know, a storm of protest, or even dissenting opinions; I will take a second look. Also, while Cohen's book seems to be generally seen as one of the most detailed and rigourous works on boundaries in Judaism in late antiquity, I will see if I can find other treatments of the matter. Notice, however, that what is new in Cohen's treatment is not his view of matrilineality as an innovation (this is standard by now) but his study of its source in the treatment of mixtures in Rabbinic thought (as opposed to the influence of Roman law)

(2) Jfdwolff: Nobody is disputing the authority of the Orthodox to decide what Orthodoxy is. Moreover, I understand perfectly well that it is a central tenet of Orthodoxy that what I and most other people call "Orthodoxy" is in fact simply normative Judaism. What is at stake is history. Historical research into religious texts is a matter of the last two hundred years, for the most part. The fact that many people before and now had a view of the world different from that of historians is a very interesting fact about people - just like the beliefs of most Westerners, say, 300 years ago about the natural world is an interesting fact about these individuals and society, not a fact about the natural world.

Sorry about the links

I didn't notice you put them at the bottom. Jayjg 21:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Josephus et al

Please bring the specific statements from Josephus etc. which indicate patrilineality, or at least a source which claims they do. Also, Wikipedia:NPOV doesn't involve drawing conclusions, so I'm going to remove the POV conclusion you've drawn in the article. You can quote someone coming to that conclusion, but you can't just state it yourself. The reader will come to whatever conclusion they think reasonable, based on the evidence. Jayjg 22:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statements by Josephus et al. are quoted and referenced in Shaye Cohen's book, Chapters 8 and 10. While I have not reintroduced what you call a POV conclusion, I would like to state that it is a conclusion that seems to have been accepted as fact; every "fact" in history is a conclusion from evidence. I may have committed the mistake of stating a fact as if it were a personal opinion. If so, I apologize. However, if every conclusion is POV, then only axioms are NPOV. Hasdrubal 23:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia:NPOV works is that all sides are presented from their own POV. Thus you can quote someone (assuming it's a significant opinion) stating that "matrilineality was invented by the Rabbis", but the article itself can't take the position. Jayjg 23:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thus, would we have only quotations in an article on evolution, say? And what is "a significant opinion" - one held by many people, one held by people in a position of authority outside academia, or one held by, well, people in a position of authority within academia? BTW, thanks for the message. Hasdrubal

No, you can have plenty of information, but you need to have sources which back it up. As for significant? That's hotly debated, of course. :-) Regarding Philo and Josephus, what the article needs is some references to the specific statements in both which appear to back up patriliniality. Quoting them would be even better. Jayjg 23:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just went over the relevant chapters in Cohen's book today, but I didn't write

down the bibliographic information; I'll do that soon. (Yes, Cohen does have

specific quotations.) As for "backing up" - the matter did not seem to be

under discussion at the time and place, so "stating" or "assuming" would be a

better verb; in any case, Philo does call children of one Jewish and one non-Jewish

parent "nothoi" (= bastards), so Philo certainly isn't anybody's support group

(you may have thought I was stating the contrary).

BTW - here's another Conservative rabbi on the matter, though he may be said to be

on the left wing of the movement, or at least, I suppose, its west coast -

http://www.vbs.org/rabbi/hshulw/lucy_bot.htm

Notice that this supports both (a) my statement as to how patrilineality is

not considered acceptable by the central Conservative organizations, (b) my

statement as to how views that are current among historians are current among ::::Conservative rabbis. Note also that "mater certa, pater incerta", the influence

of the mother on the child and the great frequency of rape by Roman soldiers

are considered, and rejected, as probable causes by Cohen.

For what it's worth - I found more on possible disagreements as to policy within

the Conservative movement in an article by the same rabbi:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/old/shulweis.3.10.0.htm Hasdrubal 00:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Josephus and Philo references

I've been looking in the works mentioned, and they seem to be numbered differently that the citations given. Can anyone shed any light on this? Jayjg 04:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi -

I have just checked the quotations online - I had no trouble finding them in the editions that are available on the www. Are you using the same editions as specified in the bibliography of Cohen's book (or the same that I just used to give a double-check)? Generally, line numbers are the same across editions of classical works, so I am surprised.

As I think I've made clear in the latest revision, what we have (in the case of Josephus) is assumptions and modes of thought (cf. a certain Targum - which one escapes me - where abundant commentary is introduced to bring Biblical practices on conversion (none, essentially) in accord with such practices as were in use at the time of Targum (and later)). Philo does spell things out. Hasdrubal 22:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which online site did you use? Jayjg 22:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MtDNA

All the waffle about MtDNA and energy conversion sounds a bit dodge- references needed!

Animal societies

I would like to see discussion of matrilineality in animal societies such as orcas and elephants. Kent Wang 15:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to see that, know something about it, and (preferably) have references about it, then go ahead and add it yourself. Petronivs 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

@Kent Wang

It is the natural way that the offspring remains with their origin, i.e. the mother.

Male descndants have to look for sex partners outside of their maternal clan, in order to avoid the violent competition among males destroying the unity of a female's offspring. One has to be blind to avoid seeing this fact among animals. L.Willms (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We cannot do WP:Original research - including "common sense" interpretation. If you have a WP:Reliable source on animal matrilineality, then we can add it.

TypistMonkey (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sparta

"While men held positions of religious and political power, Spartan constitution mandated that inheritance and proprietorship pass from mother to daughter.[24]" - The source that is given actually says that inheritance was passed equally to sons and daughters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.118.0.203 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@116.118.0.203

Sure, but the heir of a male are not his biological sons, but those of his sister.

Early humans acted like their ancestral animals, where the offspring of the women, and of her sisters are the primary unit. Males had to leave because of the violent competition among males for exclusive access to the female genitals. This changes with the patriarchal revolution. L.Willms (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Islamic Arabia

"on the other hand, there seems to be some reliable evidence for the presence of matrilineality in Islamic Arabia, the descendants of prophet Muhammad 12 imams are said to be from the lineage of his daughter Fatima termed as "sons of Fatima". This is stated as a matter of fact without any source or citation. I left it in instead of removing it to see if there would be any response for a citation. Otherwise I think it should be removed until a citation can be included. It appears to support a patriarchal line because of tying back to Muhammed rather than the daughter. Brycesteiner (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud: Totem and Taboo

I added this book as one of the most important counter-positions, and also the link to the full text on the web in the original German and in English.
Freud's diatribe is -- of course -- nonsensical, but has to be considered in a full discussion as one of the most autoritative counter-arguments against the facts. --L.Willms (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)