I will be the first to jump in on this one LOL.....
I am certainly no expert so I will just share my present understanding that I do admit is not that well researched.
Strangely .... the answer seems to be both...
Judaism is a race of people descended from Issac son of Abraham.
That seems a pretty straightforward lineage thing.
Judaism is also a religion based on God's promise and relationship with Abraham passed down through Issac  (I do hope I am expressing the biblical viewpoint here properly ...please do help me if I am incorrect)
The thing is .... that over time .... an outsider could be brought into the fold so to speak.   From my understanding that took a number of generations to become a full jew in all respects.  I seem to recall reading something about this in the Old Tesatment somewhere.
Maybe there is someone out there that can help us understand better???
I am anxious to follow this thread and read the contribution of others.
Thank you crazyheart for starting this thread!
Rita

I think this is a matter of self-definition CH; my husband ethnically and culturally defines himself as a Jew; religiously he defines himself as an Atheist when feeling cynical, an Agnostic in his more mushy-gushy moods. His mother similarly, while Jewish, probably practices Buddhism as a religion (meditation, vegetarianism, etc.) moreso than her own 'faith'. Judaism is one of those interesting ones, unlike Christianity or Islam, which has tied race/ethnicity to religion, and when not tied together (when a non-ethnic Jew converts, or an ethnic Jew does not believe) has historically created some issues (conversion is challenging to the point of almost being discouraged; it is not a proseletyzing religion like Christianity ... and those like my husband who marry non-Jews and don't practice are actually internally seen as one of the biggest issues the continuation of the Jewish 'race' face).

Have you read Good Book by David Plotz, editor of Slate Magazine? He discusses this to a certain extent, the separation of the Jewish culture and belief in the Jewish faith paradigm, and how that developed throughout the Hebrew Bible.

"Race" is not a scienfic term. Precise racial definition is not possible.

Moreover, the "Semitic" race, to which Jews are supposed to belong, also includes Christians and Arabs of that region.

Jews can't even be regarded as an ethnic group. To me, Judaism is a religion and a cultural tradition. 

Arminius this is a fair point - my main firsthand experience with this is my husband's family, none of whom are particularly 'believing' and certainly not practicing, yet identify as Jewish. But you're right - I think the scientific terms of 'race' and 'ethnicity' are perhaps less relevant than divorcing religion from culture (ie; Santa Claus and Easter Bunny = culture; Creche and Cross = religion).

It is not a black and white. It can be culture, religion, race, nationality....

There is the Jewish religion and we all know that. Then you have Jews who do not practice, but that is their culture, family background.... If my whole life I have been Jewish, not just religiously but food, music, language, holidays... does it end when I stop practicing? My background is Ashkenazik not Sephardic. Yet, my father by virtue of being a Triestino Jew was ex[posed to Ashkenazik and Sephardic culture. But either way, you have a language (either Yiddish or Hebrew or both), you have music, foods....  Does that cease when you no longer go to Temple? Now, because there are differences between Ashkenazik and Sephardic Jews, they do not have the same ethnicity and they do not have the same culture, You have those who live in Israel and are secular Jews or atheist Jews. Are they Jews or not Jews?

According to many nation's laws, Jews are a race. We (note I used we because I am a practicing Christian who is a Jew), we are protected by laws about discrimination based on race. It is also a bone of contention to some.

Then there is the issue of Jew or Jewish. Halakhah, Jewish law, distinguishes between them.  You can practice the Jewish religion of Judaism and not be a Jew and be unable to ever be considered a Jew. You can also not practice the religion and you will always be, according to halakhah, a Jew.

So, we have to understand that it is an issue of statutes and identification or self-identification and whether it is done by Jews or non-Jews.

I will use myself as an example. My father was a practicing Orthodox Jew. That would not make me a Jew, but I could be Jewish. I would have had to convert to Judaism even if it was the only religion I knew. Halakhah goes with matrilineal descent. My mother was a practicing Lutheran. Yet, my mother was, according to halakhah, also a Jewess. That confuses many as she was a practicing Lutheran. Her mother and father were practicing Lutherans, but they were Jews, because they had been converted. (Note I used "had been converted" instead of "they converted", it is a nuance that is important. We must remember that conversion was not a pretty sight in our past and participants were not always willing converts and one could convert to authorities, but not be converted, etc...) Confused yet? Because they were Orthodox, halakhah says a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish even if they were converted or they converted. Even today, a Jewish woman who converts is considered a Jew her entire life by halakha and has children that halakhah considers Jewish children.  So, I did not have to convert as my grandmother, my mother were Jewesses.. I was considered a Jewess. Now, if I had practiced Reform Judaism, they would say that now I, as a practicing Christian, am no longer a Jew. In Orthodox Judaism, which is what I practiced, although I am a baptized Christian, I am still a Jew according to halakhah. So, if you ask me, I will always be a Jew.

Thoroughly confused?

It is not any more or less confusing that my father's family were or were not Italian. From 1300 and something the family were Trieste Jews. That does not mean they were Italian. Trieste was a major port and still sits bordering countries. Trieste was annexed by Austria, German Jews came in. It was occupied by the French. Jews came from Corfu (as Greeks, they were among the Sephardic). My grandparents spoke, read Italian. My grandfather worked for Trieste to become part of Italy. They considered themselves Italian. Were they?

To me, Jews are not a race. Race is in the genes. Jews from all over are tied together but are not genetic relatives and we do not have common ancestors. A status of race also is a bone of contention to me, because it tries to simplify a complex thing instead of trying to understand it. You know, "you are ___, I do not care what you say you are, you are ___". I also do not like it because of history and current racial garbage.

When people hear Jews are a nation, people get freaked out. They think it means borders, polotics, loyalties, etc.... Yet, they do not understand that ancients saw people as from a specific nation and that did not mean that place even had a border or government. It meant they shared a history, yet not always. It could also be that you joined them and shared a goal or a vision or a destiny. Today, and in our pasts, people think you mean that place and that we may be loyal to over the one we reside in. It has happened with most immigrants. Yet, you can be a Jew or Jewish and not a Zionist. The misunderstanding of the biblical use of  "Jewish nation" has resulted in much bloodshed and hatred.

Is a Christian a member of a group of people, a family? Is it about religious affiliation? Is it cultural? Do you have to be in the books to be one? If you do not practice do you lose your Christian status?

Understanding is possible, but it means we have to let the people asked tell you their rules. It means we cannot say "ok, but..." and label them as we see fit.

I am a Jew. I am a Christian.  I am an Italian. I am an American. I am a Canadian. I am a person. When we do not feel we have to align only one way... then we get to see the beautiful mutli-facets that make up all people.....

Shalom

Hi Stevie:

Brilliant, as usual. Thanks

Thank you StevieG .... that gives me a lot more insight into a very complex subject.

Wow, StevieG, thanks for sharing  ...

I knew you would come Stevie and though I am confused, I am brilliantly confused. Thank you.

The confusion is about matrilineal stuff, usually. You see it is rooted in ancient times but not biblical, so people who read only the bible miss it. Jews use more than the Tanahk/Written Torah or OT, and the canonized OT does not include all that is used by Jews. They also have Oral Torah. It was written down as the Mishnah. People commented on the Mishnah and that body of work is called the Gemara. When you combine the Mishnah and the Gemara you have the Talmud. There are two Talmuds, the Jerusalem one and the more involved Babylonian one. There there are additional commentaries made by scholars at various points in time, those are folks like Rambam and Rashi.... there were also schools of thought like Hillel and Shammai and they did not agree (think Luther and Calvin) so everything you want to know about Jews and laws about crops is not always in the OT, it can be elsewhere. The same with laws about marriage and lineage. (Isn't it the same with Christianity?)

Without a temple and without autonomy the Oral history had to be written down.  So think midrash or exegesis and commentary....

Jews used to say a women went to a new tribe and she was one of them. They were the ones taking new wives. It was holy and good.... Times changed. People had to deal with it and they studied Torah and came up with ways for scripture to be timeless and still guide them though times had changed. (Don't Christians also do that?)

In fact, the laws about matrilineal lines came about during Roman occupation. The Talmud needed to address what happened when a Jewish woman was taken as a slave, forced to belong to a non-Jew, raped.... If a woman had been a part of the Jewish community would her offspring of a rape by a Roman lose that identity and not belong?Did she become a Roman? So they read and re-read Torah and looked for some sign from Hashem that it was ok to address this change in time and circumstance.  They found it in a line like in Devarim/Deuteronomy 7:3-4.

Part of it may also have been that a child was not always heir or the child of a legally recognized wife, but perhaps a child of a slave or a concubine. They were not deemed equal children. So, the child was the mother's as far as lineage went. Also a part may have been played in the fact that historically women did more of the nurturing and teaching and it included faith.

So, that also addressed those Jews forced, by periods of time, to convert. They were, no matter what happened to them in their life, still themselves. They had their identity when they had nothing else. It also gave women an identity separate than her husband. You see, young women were often by force or circumstance considered married to men they did not want to be married to. A loss of virginity meant the man must marry you. That does not mean you want to be married to him. Would you want the woman no longer part of your community or faith because of that?  If you were long in tooth or unsuitable for marriage just about anyone would do because of necessity not because you did not value your faith or your child...  Losing them to circumstance or necessity, did not mean you wanted them to lose their faith.... The authorities ruling any land may deem otherwise, but to Jews they would always be Jews, love by family and loved by God. Think Jewish woman forced to bear children with a pagan... do you want her to believe that because of circumstance beyond her control that she is a pagan and not monotheistic in the eyes of community or God?

So, the matrilineal descent began....

Orthodox still keep matrilineal descent laws, as do Conservative Jews. Reform Jews and Reconstructionist Jews do not and are partiarchial.

Different rules depending on denomination, sound familiar?

I will tell you what an elderly woman once said (she was brilliant and kept it real simple) "Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe".

My  mom used to say something along those same lines StevieG - a little more lengthly, but when I read the simple quote it reminded me of my conversations with her.