Are we all Jews?

[Confused]

I have heard arguments that being Jewish is more cultural these days, that one can be one simply by birth. If such is the case, if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, are we not all Jewish by birth then?

[Nameless]

I have heard arguments that being Jewish is more cultural these days, that one can be one simply by birth. If such is the case, if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, are we not all Jewish by birth then?

No.
There is an error in the logic. Non-sequitur.
There are a multitude of branches forking from the 'single trunk' of 'Adam and Eve' before 'Abraham's branch' from which the Israelites claim to have sprung.
According to your 'logic', we are all 'black', 'asian', 'amerind', etc... also, due to 'common heritage'.
Just because we all shop for dinner at the same market doesn't mean that we are all buying the same food or cooking the same meal.
A 'tree' is fractal in nature, not linear.

[cnorman18]

I have heard arguments that being Jewish is more cultural these days, that one can be one simply by birth. If such is the case, if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, are we not all Jewish by birth then?

No.
There is an error in the logic. Non-sequitur.
There are a multitude of branches forking from the 'single trunk' of 'Adam and Eve' before 'Abraham's branch' from which the Israelites claim to have sprung.
According to your 'logic', we are all 'black', 'asian', 'amerind', etc... also, due to 'common heritage'.
Just because we all shop for dinner at the same market doesn't mean that we are all buying the same food or cooking the same meal.
A 'tree' is fractal in nature, not linear.

All that is quite correct, and it's worth noting that not even all of Abraham's descendants are Jews. Ishmael, Abraham's eldest son, is traditionally the father of the Arab people (even according to them), and Esau, Isaac's eldest, was the father of the Edomites, mortal enemies of the Hebrews and traditionally the ancestors of the Romans.

That Ishmael's mother was not Abraham's wife, but his maid, is not relevant, by the way; the issue in ancient times was whether the father acknowledged the child, not whether the parents were married. Some of the twelve sons of Jacob were born to concubines, not wives - and of course Jacob and Esau were twins.

[Skyler]

I have heard arguments that being Jewish is more cultural these days, that one can be one simply by birth. If such is the case, if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, are we not all Jewish by birth then?

No.
There is an error in the logic. Non-sequitur.
There are a multitude of branches forking from the 'single trunk' of 'Adam and Eve' before 'Abraham's branch' from which the Israelites claim to have sprung.
According to your 'logic', we are all 'black', 'asian', 'amerind', etc... also, due to 'common heritage'.
Just because we all shop for dinner at the same market doesn't mean that we are all buying the same food or cooking the same meal.
A 'tree' is fractal in nature, not linear.

All that is quite correct, and it's worth noting that not even all of Abraham's descendants are Jews. Ishmael, Abraham's eldest son, is traditionally the father of the Arab people (even according to them), and Esau, Isaac's eldest, was the father of the Edomites, mortal enemies of the Hebrews and traditionally the ancestors of the Romans.

That Ishmael's mother was not Abraham's wife, but his maid, is not relevant, by the way; the issue in ancient times was whether the father acknowledged the child, not whether the parents were married. Some of the twelve sons of Jacob were born to concubines, not wives - and of course Jacob and Esau were twins.

From a Christian perspective, Paul points out that "not all those of Israel are Israel"--that is, there's more to being one of the chosen people than being born to a Jewish family.

[cnorman18]

I have heard arguments that being Jewish is more cultural these days, that one can be one simply by birth. If such is the case, if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, are we not all Jewish by birth then?

No.
There is an error in the logic. Non-sequitur.
There are a multitude of branches forking from the 'single trunk' of 'Adam and Eve' before 'Abraham's branch' from which the Israelites claim to have sprung.
According to your 'logic', we are all 'black', 'asian', 'amerind', etc... also, due to 'common heritage'.
Just because we all shop for dinner at the same market doesn't mean that we are all buying the same food or cooking the same meal.
A 'tree' is fractal in nature, not linear.

All that is quite correct, and it's worth noting that not even all of Abraham's descendants are Jews. Ishmael, Abraham's eldest son, is traditionally the father of the Arab people (even according to them), and Esau, Isaac's eldest, was the father of the Edomites, mortal enemies of the Hebrews and traditionally the ancestors of the Romans.

That Ishmael's mother was not Abraham's wife, but his maid, is not relevant, by the way; the issue in ancient times was whether the father acknowledged the child, not whether the parents were married. Some of the twelve sons of Jacob were born to concubines, not wives - and of course Jacob and Esau were twins.

From a Christian perspective, Paul points out that "not all those of Israel are Israel"--that is, there's more to being one of the chosen people than being born to a Jewish family.

That may very well be true from a Christian perspective, and indeed there are even indications of such in Jewish tradition; but in an entirely different way.

For Jews, Paul is not worth a glance. Either he actually knew little of Judaism in spite of his claims, or he chose to depart from it radically on several accounts without making that clear. One might even say that Paul's teachings about the Jewish faith are a strawman, because those teachings have little to with the Judaism of even his own time.

[Kadmon]

I have heard arguments that being Jewish is more cultural these days, that one can be one simply by birth. If such is the case, if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, are we not all Jewish by birth then?

My Question To You Is How Could [ Adam ] Jew / Jewish ?

[Jrosemary]

Some of the twelve sons of Jacob were born to concubines, not wives . . .

True--but Bilhah and Zilpah seem to be upgraded to wives in the aftermath of the death of Rachel and Leah. I think that's the implication of Gen. 37:2 in Va-Yashev. That's what we decided in Torah study, anyway, after looking at some commentaries--probably Rashi's.

That being the case, and because they are the mother to so many of Jacobs' children, I once asked in that Torah study why we don't mention Bilhah and Zilpah along with Sarah, Rebeccah, Rachel and Leah when we name the matriarchs. One guy in my Conservative synagogue glared at me and said, "Because our services are long enough!"

For Jews, Paul is not worth a glance. Either he actually knew little of Judaism in spite of his claims, or he chose to depart from it radically on several accounts without making that clear. One might even say that Paul's teachings about the Jewish faith are a strawman, because those teachings have little to with the Judaism of even his own time.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying--except I wouldn't say Paul's not worth a glance. He's not an authority for Jews, but his letters (at least the seven that are largely accepted as authentic) make for fascinating reading. Daniel Boyarin, a Talmudic scholar, wrote an intriguing book called Paul: A Radical Jew. Boyarin argues with Paul across the centuries over issues that seem to be eternal in Judaism: who is and isn't a Jew? How does one become part of the people Israel? Is halachah (Jewish law) binding? etc.

Anyway, as Boyarin points out, Paul's letters constitute the spiritual autobiography of a first century Jew--we don't have anything else that matches that description. However radically Paul departed from Judaism, I think that alone makes his epistles worth far more than a glance.

I have heard arguments that being Jewish is more cultural these days, that one can be one simply by birth. If such is the case, if we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, are we not all Jewish by birth then?

I doubt being Jewish is any more or less a cultural thing these days than it has been any time in, oh, nearly all of Jewish history.

One is halachically Jewish--that is, a Jew according to Jewish law--just by being born to a Jewish mother. This has been the case for at least the past two thousand years and probably longer. One of my relatives (who was born to a Jewish mother) has never, as far as I know, stepped foot in a synagogue. His mother was an atheist who raised him vaguely Protestant. He goes to a Methodist church now--though I think he's agnostic.

Heck, you can't even call him culturally Jewish, because he once asked me what mazel tov meant.

Nonetheless, he's halachically Jewish--and if he decided to walk into a synagogue tomorrow, he would count as part of a minyan. (A quorum, that is.)

As to why everyone's not Jewish: Adam was not the first Jew--Abraham was. As Cnorman points out, the line theoretically comes from Abraham, although in addition to losing some people along the way, we've also gained innumerable converts. There are lots of 'Jews by choice,'--I suppose in theory, Abraham and Sarah would themselves be the first. So it's not really a bloodline thing: you can join the people Israel no matter where you came from.

And once you join this people, if you're a woman, your children will be halachically Jewish, as will your daughter's children, etc--regardless of whether they ever set foot in synagogue.