Israelite cultures languages

[Karlingid]

I just noticed that the Israelite cultures no longer share the common "Israelite" language. While this is acceptable to some degree, since Jews would be more speaking something more like pidgins than fully autonomous languages at this point in time, this creates some issues with accurate representation of some groups. Allow me to explain:

Ashkenazim

The historical situation of Ashkenazim in this era is somewhat precarious. While by the end of the period they were undoubtedly speaking a Germanic language in the day-to-day, in the earlier half the preferred language may have actually been a form of Judeo-Romance. Jewish establishment in Germanic-speaking regions came relatively late, while earlier Jewish communities in this region typically followed Roman colonies and later Romance-speaking groups. The original languages are assumed to be Judeo-French (Zarphatic) and Judeo-Italian (Italqit) before the adoption of Middle High German. The oldest evidence of Yiddish is written in 1272, over halfway through the game's timeframe. More evidence continues to sprout from the 14th century onward.

A portion of this population may have natively spoken Aramaic as well. While some argue that it could've survived plausibly among Jewish communities in Europe (and, indeed, just about every Jewish language in Europe shows heavy Aramaic influence), one must also bear in mind that the significant devastation of the Ashkenazi community in the High Medieval period was partly offset by the arrival of many Bavlim (Iraqi Jews) fleeing the fall of the Exilarch and later the rise of the Mongols. These people would've spoken Aramaic and brought it with them on the way to Europe.

Sephardim

The situation of the Sephardim in this time period is complicated, depending on what, exactly, the Sephardim are meant to represent. While it could represent the significant chunk of Jews living in Iberia, who made up a significant majority of the Jewish population of Europe, this umbrella is often used to apply to Jews across North Africa and West Asia as well. In this time period particularly, where Muslim rule in Iberia was strong, this isn't the worst connection. Rambam, ie Maimonides, famously an Iberian rabbi, became the Prince of the Jews in Egypt as a tribal ethnarch. The majority of Jews globally in this time lived in Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia, the lands Jews inhabited during the Hellenistic period.

At this point in time, Arabic was the clear favorite. It was spoken in Iberia, it was spoken in Egypt. While Judeo-Occitan (Judeo-Provencal, sometimes called "Shuadit" in modern times) and Judeo-Catalan were spoken by some easterly Iberian communities, and Judeo-Iberian-Romance generally was spoken all over (in Christian and Muslim lands, as many Muslims also spoke Latin languages), Judeo-Arabic was often spoken right alongside them in the very same communities. Jews in West Asia actually largely spoke Aramaic in this period, rather than Arabic, but Arabic nonetheless remains the 'popular' choice, and a significant lingua franca for Jews in general during this time.

Kochinim

This is pretty much fine, carry on. As a fun fact, there was a time when around 10% of all Jews lived in India.

Radhanim

So this is an interesting one. "Radhanite" was never the name of a group of Jews, per se. It was a certain type of merchant, specifically, Jewish merchants who traversed the Silk Road and kept it alive. The Khazars were rather friendly, regardless of whether just a few nobles converted or what, and the Radhanites used this relative stability to traverse the great expanse. These were usually individuals making the entire journey from France to China and back, rather than groups handing off goods from stop to stop. Most Radhanites were Ashkenazi.

What this group represents is probably Bukhorim, the Jewish communities of Central Asia. These weren't Jews embedded in Turkic cultures, but actually were descended from the community of Persia, and were closer generally to other Iranian-speaking groups. Jews from Persia speak a number of Judeo-Iranian languages, but the Bukhorim would speak, well, Bukhori, also called Judeo-Tajik, considered a variant of Judeo-Persian. Accordingly, the most accurate language for this group would be Iranian, not Scythian, and most certainly not Shaz as it currently is.

Bavlim

The Bavlim are the descendants of the ancient Jews who stayed behind in Babylon. Through all of history, they spoke Eastern Aramaic, and tended to live amidst indigenous Assyrians with whom they shared a language. To be entirely clear, many Bavlim still speak Aramaic today, just as the Assyrians do. In the medieval period, Aramaic was in an even stronger regional position up to the time of the Crusades. Western Aramaic was greatly diminished by the 13th century, but Eastern continued significant use. Heavily Arabized and colonized areas like Baghdad represented something of an exception, rather than a rule. Obviously, Aramaic continued to diminish over time, but it held a solid grasp on the medieval period and Aramaic remained a critical language for Jews globally, and natively spoken among the Iraqi community past a point of Arab dominance.



_____________________________________________

On the whole, I appreciate the new culture added on, and this whole DLC and update has been a great step in the right direction - but for what it's worth, the Jewish representation kinda seems to reflect more Early Modern (EU4 timeframe) history than that which is fitted to the Crusader Kings period. My recommendations are to change Ashkenazi to speak Oil Vulgar (or Italian Vulgar), Sephardi to speak Arabic, Radhanite to Iranian, and Bavli to Aramaic. In an ideal world, Radhanite might get renamed to Bukhori or Bukharian, and the namelists for Sephardi and Ashkenazi would get revised to transfer Judeo-French names to Ashkenazi, as the Zarphatic-speaking community of historic France and the Rhineland is traditionally considered to be an essential part of the early Ashkenazi community and, indeed, often its definitive form in this period.

EDIT: Now seeing that there are a few more new changes to Jewish faiths - I would also recommend changing the penalty. While there were some historic tensions all around, I wouldn't say that they consider one another to be essentially foreign. Jewish and Samaritan interactions, as well as Rabbinic and Karaite interactions, were most generally in strong solidarity with one another. Toward the end of Byzantine rule in the area, Jews and Samaritans fought together against foreign occupation. Maimonides had no reluctance or hesitation to converse and meet with Karaites while he was the Nagid of Egypt. Even today, Samaritans, Karaites, and Rabbinic Jews, all have a fairly common identity as Israelites, and hold positive, sometimes fiercely defensive, attitudes with regard to solidarity.

Karaites only began to seriously separate from mainline Rabbinic Jews in late history, and as a direct consequence of the Tsar's especially harsh oppression and bloodlust against Jews, and then again during German occupation. The bridge has been mended a bit since then, but it's a fantastically modern thing to be considered so different. Samaritans have traditionally held a rabbinic status of being equivalent to unobservant Jews, holding Israelite blood and being trusted to act in good faith, but ignorant of proper ritual without fault or malice. That Kochinim and Beta Israel (Indian and Ethiopian Jews, respectively) are considered at all different is a big mess. Kochinim in this time were, as mentioned earlier, upwards of 10% of all Jews in the world, and were firmly considered part of the Jewish mainstream. Eldad haDani, the earliest account of what appears to be authentically Beta Israel customs, impressed rabbanim. Despite the confusion of how to classify, as the rabbanim contended that many of their recorded customs were more similar to Karaite ones, they fully accepted Beta Israel as mainline Jews, and respected that difference.

Judaism is not strictly dogmatic and universalizing to the point of evicting Israelites from the tribe for minor differences. It's an inbuilt understanding that different communities have different traditions, and this is no issue - especially before the 18th century or so. To consider one another 'evil' is incredibly harsh from any of them, to any of them. Karaites and Samaritans might be considered Astray and might consider the rest in kind, but beyond this, it should generally be 'righteous' all around. The cultural differences that already exist should provide all the necessary 'friction' to represent what little friction there is. It's also a bit strange that leaning especially strongly into mysticism is considered an entirely separate faith to the mainline, when it was very popular and even the rationalists took part in it. There was some mystic pushback against Maimonidean rationalism, but once again, solidarity between groups tended to win out, and Nahmanides in the end appreciated Maimonides more than he hated him. Debate and questioning and disagreement were, and still are, considered essential to the character of Jewish practice.

I would also note the point of the Israelite language previously in bridging the gaps between these groups. Pretty much all Jewish languages and dialects share a common Hebrew (and Aramaic) vocabulary related to matters of tradition: what in Europe is conventionally divided into spirituality, culture, politics, economy, in Jewish custom is all together as part of the singular tradition, and broadly inseparable. The common vocabulary between these groups led to Hebrew being another lingua franca, a rather universal one, through most of history. Even when they didn't speak it natively, this common ground was a big means for communicating between different communities. Proper education in Hebrew and Aramaic was the mark of education, and while some held Hebrew to be a strictly sacred language and advocated secular Aramaic as an alternative, Hebrew was also used for science, poetry, philosophy, and - when available - administration all throughout the period.

I'm not saying it's bad the different cultures now have different native languages. It makes sense. But the historical reality that helped unite the communities should also be considered, perhaps. A way for Jewish characters to learn "Israelite", or otherwise make them innately bilingual, or something. Again, the friction between Jewish groups is nowhere near as big as historically between Catholic and Orthodox, or Sunni and Shi'a, and I'd like to see this represented. Jewish custom doesn't really have much in common with Christian and Islamic attitudes with a lot of things, and this is one reason why the "Abrahamic" grouping is... controversial, to say the least. Druze and Gnostics are "Abrahamic" too, after all. Judaism is at its core is a 'folk religion', an 'ethnoreligion', a tribal/indigenous custom like those traditionally found in the "Pagan" group. It has rather similar decentralized attitudes accordingly, and a tendency to band together in defensive solidarity than go on the offensive.

You can still have it consider Christianity and Islam to be hostile or evil though. Maimonides, brought up again for being one of the great, definitive sages of the time, had a lot to say on this, and considered these two to be the continuation of Babylon, Greece, and Rome, two distinct efforts that exist specifically to undermine the authenticity of Jewish custom and law, and whose ultimate goal was the destruction of Jews. Reflecting on that, a rather strong negative opinion is perfectly fair representation.

 

[Meka66]

I don't have time to read through and verify all of this right now, but I gave it a quick read through and these seem like perfectly reasonable suggestions at first glance. I'll look into this stuff more deeply for my next PDT

To consider one another 'evil' is incredibly harsh from any of them, to any of them. Karaites and Samaritans might be considered Astray and might consider the rest in kind, but beyond this, it should generally be 'righteous' all around.

I will address this point now, however. Before my changes, all Jewish faiths considered each other Hostile, and Evil is the only step more hostile than Hostile we currently have in the game. I trusted the default setup was accurate, and simply made Samaritanism one step more estranged than the default.

I'll have to look into this further, but if accurate, I don't mind at all adjusting faith hostility levels accordingly.

Any sources you can provide for things listed in this thread would be greatly appreciated!

 

[apollo1989vieten]

Samaritans would always view other Jewish faiths as hostile. They believe that the rest of the Jews follow a distorted Old Testament. They claim that Shiloh was not the place that the Tent of Meetings was setup for a permanent worship spot, but outside Shechem. Then Eli, foster father of the prophet Samuel, setup a rival site at Shiloh.

Traditional views have Samaritans as a mixture of the northern ten tribes that the Assyrians did not deport and foreigners brought in by the Assyrians. Hostility existed when Cyrus allowed Jews to return from the Babylonian exile. Josephus claims that they were eager to antagonize the Jews. In the Gospels, they clearly showed hostility to people traveling to Jerusalem to worship.

 

[Holbenilord]

As a fun fact, there was a time when around 10% of all Jews lived in India.

Oh that's really interesting. What time period was this?

 

[Ramidel]

"Righteous-Astray-Hostile-Evil" is a gameable abstraction and not entirely accurate. However, the Samaritans would definitely be seen as "not Jewish."

All historical Jewish religions are Pluralist, of course. They don't consider their own religion to be everybody's religion - their covenant is for them and others are to be kept at a polite arm's length, but generally not attacked, and the penalty is only half of a full-on Evil (though Samaritanism is a little worse due to the specific doctrinal conflict).

Druze and Gnostics are "Abrahamic" too, after all.

And they're represented. Admittedly, Druzes are lumped under Islam, even though that's like calling Christianity a Jewish sect - that is, it's taxonomically correct, but religions aren't defined by strict taxonomy. Still - the "Abrahamic" grouping basically means Judaism and religions that descend from it.

 

[Aquamancer]

Radhanim

So this is an interesting one. "Radhanite" was never the name of a group of Jews, per se. It was a certain type of merchant, specifically, Jewish merchants who traversed the Silk Road and kept it alive. The Khazars were rather friendly, regardless of whether just a few nobles converted or what, and the Radhanites used this relative stability to traverse the great expanse. These were usually individuals making the entire journey from France to China and back, rather than groups handing off goods from stop to stop. Most Radhanites were Ashkenazi.

What this group represents is probably Bukhorim, the Jewish communities of Central Asia. These weren't Jews embedded in Turkic cultures, but actually were descended from the community of Persia, and were closer generally to other Iranian-speaking groups. Jews from Persia speak a number of Judeo-Iranian languages, but the Bukhorim would speak, well, Bukhori, also called Judeo-Tajik, considered a variant of Judeo-Persian. Accordingly, the most accurate language for this group would be Iranian, not Scythian, and most certainly not Shaz as it currently is.

In-game, Radhanites are used to represent the Jewish population of the city of Samkarsh in Khazaria - in 867, Tmutarakan's culture is Radhanite and is ruled by a Radhanite Jew, the only one in the game's history files for that matter. So, if Radhanites are to be adjusted to be more accurate, it should be based on the Jewish population of Samkarsh (and the Jewish diasporic culture they belonged to) rather than Central Asian Jews.

 

[Karlingid]

Samaritans would always view other Jewish faiths as hostile. They believe that the rest of the Jews follow a distorted Old Testament. They claim that Shiloh was not the place that the Tent of Meetings was setup for a permanent worship spot, but outside Shechem. Then Eli, foster father of the prophet Samuel, setup a rival site at Shiloh.

Traditional views have Samaritans as a mixture of the northern ten tribes that the Assyrians did not deport and foreigners brought in by the Assyrians. Hostility existed when Cyrus allowed Jews to return from the Babylonian exile. Josephus claims that they were eager to antagonize the Jews. In the Gospels, they clearly showed hostility to people traveling to Jerusalem to worship.

This is, however, describing a time nearly a millennium prior to the starting date. A time when both Jews and Samaritans were majorities in their own homelands, and the autonomy or even outright independence of these peoples in this condition was a very recent - or still living - memory. In the time of the later Sanhedrin and the composition of the Mishna and Gemara, they are presented as being roughly equivalent in status and trust to 'Am ha'Arets - nonobservant or uneducated Jews. During the Byzantine period of rule (late antiquity, early medieval) over the Levant, Jews and Samaritans fought together in rebellion, compared to the earlier classical Roman rule when Samaritan auxilia were used to suppress Jewish sentiments. Benjamin of Tudela refers to Samaritans as "Jews of Shomron", does not doubt the validity of their kohanim, and always lists them when present as well as Rabbinic Jews and Karaites. He clearly considered them of interest, especially when as he describes, these three groups live on friendly terms.

Oh that's really interesting. What time period was this?

Around the time period of the game! Circa 1170, with the help of aforementioned Benjamin of Tudela who went around collecting as much demographic data on Jews as he could, the Jewish population of the time is estimated about half in Southwest Asia (mostly in the Levant and Mesopotamia, but also Persia and Yemen), about 1/5 in Europe (mostly Iberia, with the Rhine, Italy, and pockets in Greece as well. The Caucasus had a Jewish community, whether that counts as Europe or Asia is up to you), about 1/10 in India, about 1/10 in Africa (mostly Egypt, but throughout North Africa and a bit in Ethiopia too), and about 1/10 in Central and East Asia, places like Bukhara and Kaifeng. A more exact estimate would skew actually more 13% India, 7% Central/East Asia, but higher specificity is lower confidence.

"Righteous-Astray-Hostile-Evil" is a gameable abstraction and not entirely accurate. However, the Samaritans would definitely be seen as "not Jewish."

All historical Jewish religions are Pluralist, of course. They don't consider their own religion to be everybody's religion - their covenant is for them and others are to be kept at a polite arm's length, but generally not attacked, and the penalty is only half of a full-on Evil (though Samaritanism is a little worse due to the specific doctrinal conflict).

And they're represented. Admittedly, Druzes are lumped under Islam, even though that's like calling Christianity a Jewish sect - that is, it's taxonomically correct, but religions aren't defined by strict taxonomy. Still - the "Abrahamic" grouping basically means Judaism and religions that descend from it.

They are represented, but my point was moreso that the term "Abrahamic" gets flung around pretty generously to describe traditions that might not actually have terribly much in common overall. I don't have the personal experience with these groups to discuss how well represented they are by their own definitions, I'm afraid, but I am somewhat aware that the Druze are a closed religion that has, since its founding, founded a new ethnic identity from their originally more diverse Perso-Arab followers. In this particular instance, a more pluralistic outlook from the Israelites doesn't quite mesh the (often violently) universalist outlook from Christianity and Islam, which is one of the key points I was trying to get across with my discussion.

In-game, Radhanites are used to represent the Jewish population of the city of Samkarsh in Khazaria - in 867, Tmutarakan's culture is Radhanite and is ruled by a Radhanite Jew, the only one in the game's history files for that matter. So, if Radhanites are to be adjusted to be more accurate, it should be based on the Jewish population of Samkarsh (and the Jewish diasporic culture they belonged to) rather than Central Asian Jews.

The problem is that the Jewish refugees that settled in Khazaria were of very diverse origins. They came from all over, and would've spoken Aramaic, Arabic, Latin, and Greek together. Turkic is basically the one that they didn't speak, though Jews inhabited Central Asia for centuries before and after CK3's timeframe and largely originated from the Jewish community of Persia. Even the Jews all the way in Kaifeng were originally from Persia. The ones in the Caucasus, likewise, were from the Persian community. The ones who established permanent residence overwhelmingly were connected thus, even if refugees were from diverse places, and the Radhanite merchants proper were generally Ashkenazim just passing through.

I don't have time to read through and verify all of this right now, but I gave it a quick read through and these seem like perfectly reasonable suggestions at first glance. I'll look into this stuff more deeply for my next PDT

I will address this point now, however. Before my changes, all Jewish faiths considered each other Hostile, and Evil is the only step more hostile than Hostile we currently have in the game. I trusted the default setup was accurate, and simply made Samaritanism one step more estranged than the default.

I'll have to look into this further, but if accurate, I don't mind at all adjusting faith hostility levels accordingly.

Any sources you can provide for things listed in this thread would be greatly appreciated!

Benjamin of Tudela is a great source, his work is easy to find, but it's overwhelmingly demographic data about Rabbinic, Karaite, and Samaritan communities. The bit mentioned earlier, where the three live in peace, was written particularly about Damascus, where the daily intersection of these three was perhaps at its greatest, due to how diminished the Samaritans had become. Other instances of interaction such as in Crimea and Egypt between Karaites and Rabbinic Jews nonetheless tended to be more or less positive.

According to Abraham Joshua Heschel of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Karaites had special strength in Fatimid Egypt by drawing a parallel with their history and that of the Shi'ites in terms of relation to the wider world - Rabbanim for the Jews, and Sunni doctrine for the Muslims. With this favoritism, they were allowed to flourish in Egypt. During this time, intermarriage with Rabbinic Jews was common. Maimonides, the Nagid of Egypt, tended to fall in with trying to keep the two communities distinct, but nonetheless declared that so long as Karaites were not actively denigrating Rabbinic leaders of present and past, then they should be treated with utmost respect. He advocated that Rabbinic Jews should find no qualm in circumcising Karaite children even on the Sabbath, bury their dead as Israelites and comfort their mourners, and drink of their wine. He still, however, advocated that Rabbinic Jews should not follow them in their celebration of yamim tovim on days that did not align with the Rabbinic custom, nor should they join them if there was a Rabbinic yom tov in progress and the Karaites were not celebrating it. They could not count for a minyan or a meal blessing, because they themselves did not recognize the Rabbinic source for this practice. Through these habits, the Jews of Egypt found a compromise solution between absolute separation from their kin, and free mingling without regard. They would be free to mingle socially, but maintain their respective ritual distinctions.

Meanwhile, this bit available on JSTOR covers Talmudic arguments about the awkward status of Samaritans as "kinda Jews", and relations only really ever got more positive from here as history went on.


I want to reiterate that I'm really grateful you folks even included what you did at all. The inclusion of Jews in CK2 was a game-changer for me, and seeing further development as a passion project fills my heart with sweetness. That you're reaching out to listen, even moreso. As a fun fact and a thank you for reading all this, the traditional Hebrew name of Thebes is referenced by Maimonides in his dealings with the Karaites ("in the city of No-Amon, in Egypt and in Syria and all the lands of Ishmael..."). This name, No-Amon, is just the Egyptian phrase "the city of Amun" (ⲛⲏ Ⲁⲙⲟⲩⲛ, n'wt 'mn).

 

[apollo1989vieten]

The hostilities of before the Jewish revolt have been forgotten. Samaritans and Jews joining together in revolt is just hostile groups making a common cause.

 

[EasternTiger]

Looking at how the game defines the terms Righteous, Astray, Hostile, and Evil, Samaritans should absolutely not be considered Astray. They should remain in the hostile category and I would argue that there are even arguments to classify them as "Evil". Astray is supposed represent faiths that differ in a insignificant way. Intermarriages are permitted and holy wars are not allowed against each other. Hostile represents faiths that deviate significantly. Intermarriages are permitted and holy wars are allowed against each other. The theological differences between rabbinical Judaism and Samaritanism is significant enough to be considered at least "Hostile". Intermarriage was not allowed with Samaritans and the Jews under John Hyrcanus waged war on the Samaritanism and destroyed their Temple on Mount Gerizim.

Reading your JSTOR article, the claimed Israelite-origin of the Samaritans was very much in question at that time. While some considered them as Jews, others did not. A common phrase for the Samaritans in Jewish texts was the pejorative phrase, Kutim, instead of their self-designation of Shamerim. Kutim, also translated as Cuthites or Kutheans, refers to the people of Kutha that were resettled into the former lands of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians according to the Book of Kings. Calling the Samaritans the Kutim shows that the Jews did not consider the Samaritans as fellow Jews but foreigners. The paper also suggests that the relations between the Jews and Samaritans also got worse throughout time. From the very last paragraph of the text:

It [the Bar Kokhba War] was also a period in which the status of the Samaritans began to change in the eyes of the Tannaim from that of semi-Jews to that of non-Jews. The texts reflecting this attitude stem from the period after the Bar Kokhba war. By this time, the unalterable split had been completed. This was the culmination of the long process which is termed the Samaritan schism. This split was not healed, even during the Middle Ages, and was wide enough for the Samaritans to remain during 1948-67 in Nablus under Jordanian rule.

From later period texts, we can see that the Kutim were not considered to be Jews at all.
If you look at the Chullin 6a was written after the the Tannaitic period, the Samaritans were eventually considered as full-fledged Gentiles. This was due to a supposed incident where the Samaritans were worshiping a dove-shaped idol on the Mount Gerizim, making them idolaters.
https://www.sefaria.org/Chullin.6a?lang=bi


Jews were not allowed to intermarry with them and they were able to lend or borrow money from the Samaritans. This is from the Tractate Kutim, written during the Talmudic period.
https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Kutim?tab=contents

 

[Allahui]

.

EDIT: Now seeing that there are a few more new changes to Jewish faiths - I would also recommend changing the penalty. While there were some historic tensions all around, I wouldn't say that they consider one another to be essentially foreign. Jewish and Samaritan interactions, as well as Rabbinic and Karaite interactions, were most generally in strong solidarity with one another. Toward the end of Byzantine rule in the area, Jews and Samaritans fought together against foreign occupation.

By foreign occupation do you mean the long term rulers of the byzantines, rather than the persians and arabs they sided with?

Maimonides had no reluctance or hesitation to converse and meet with Karaites while he was the Nagid of Egypt. Even today, Samaritans, Karaites, and Rabbinic Jews, all have a fairly common identity as Israelites, and hold positive, sometimes fiercely defensive, attitudes with regard to solidarity.

Accepting them into a larger grouping is long how its been, but that doesnt mean equals. As befitting a group who's origin in some mythos is that of half caste israelites, a permanent reminder of assyrian and babylonian conquest and captivity

Karaites only began to seriously separate from mainline Rabbinic Jews in late history, and as a direct consequence of the Tsar's especially harsh oppression and bloodlust against Jews, and then again during German occupation. The bridge has been mended a bit since then, but it's a fantastically modern thing to be considered so different.

Why is it the Tsar's fault that hostility between Karaites and Rabbinic Jews was as hostile as had been in previous centuries?

Samaritans have traditionally held a rabbinic status of being equivalent to unobservant Jews, holding Israelite blood and being trusted to act in good faith, but ignorant of proper ritual without fault or malice.

"You will never be equal to us, always as bad as the worst of us" actually sounds like a very low standing

That Kochinim and Beta Israel (Indian and Ethiopian Jews, respectively) are considered at all different is a big mess. Kochinim in this time were, as mentioned earlier, upwards of 10% of all Jews in the world, and were firmly considered part of the Jewish mainstream. Eldad haDani, the earliest account of what appears to be authentically Beta Israel customs, impressed rabbanim. Despite the confusion of how to classify, as the rabbanim contended that many of their recorded customs were more similar to Karaite ones, they fully accepted Beta Israel as mainline Jews, and respected that difference.

Judaism is not strictly dogmatic and universalizing to the point of evicting Israelites from the tribe for minor differences. It's an inbuilt understanding that different communities have different traditions, and this is no issue - especially before the 18th century or so. To consider one another 'evil' is incredibly harsh from any of them, to any of them.

Evil lets you imprison those that refuse conversion, which is quite fitting to Karaite treatment at rabbinic hands

Karaites and Samaritans might be considered Astray and might consider the rest in kind, but beyond this, it should generally be 'righteous' all around. The cultural differences that already exist should provide all the necessary 'friction' to represent what little friction there is.

Because you can be of the same culture eg andalucian, and treat each other differently

It's also a bit strange that leaning especially strongly into mysticism is considered an entirely separate faith to the mainline, when it was very popular and even the rationalists took part in it. There was some mystic pushback against Maimonidean rationalism, but once again, solidarity between groups tended to win out, and Nahmanides in the end appreciated Maimonides more than he hated him. Debate and questioning and disagreement were, and still are, considered essential to the character of Jewish practice.

I would also note the point of the Israelite language previously in bridging the gaps between these groups. Pretty much all Jewish languages and dialects share a common Hebrew (and Aramaic) vocabulary related to matters of tradition: what in Europe is conventionally divided into spirituality, culture, politics, economy, in Jewish custom is all together as part of the singular tradition, and broadly inseparable. The common vocabulary between these groups led to Hebrew being another lingua franca, a rather universal one, through most of history. Even when they didn't speak it natively, this common ground was a big means for communicating between different communities. Proper education in Hebrew and Aramaic was the mark of education, and while some held Hebrew to be a strictly sacred language and advocated secular Aramaic as an alternative, Hebrew was also used for science, poetry, philosophy, and - when available - administration all throughout the period.

I'm not saying it's bad the different cultures now have different native languages. It makes sense. But the historical reality that helped unite the communities should also be considered, perhaps. A way for Jewish characters to learn "Israelite", or otherwise make them innately bilingual, or something.

Its the same as no latin for Catholics or arabic for Muslims or greek for the orthodox

Again, the friction between Jewish groups is nowhere near as big as historically between Catholic and Orthodox, or Sunni and Shi'a, and I'd like to see this represented. Jewish custom doesn't really have much in common with Christian and Islamic attitudes with a lot of things, and this is one reason why the "Abrahamic" grouping is... controversial, to say the least. Druze and Gnostics are "Abrahamic" too, after all.

Abrahamic gnostics are, other gnostics arent

Judaism is at its core is a 'folk religion', an 'ethnoreligion', a tribal/indigenous custom like those traditionally found in the "Pagan" group. It has rather similar decentralized attitudes accordingly, and a tendency to band together in defensive solidarity than go on the offensive.

Its an ethnoreligious identity nowadays, but that doesnt make it merely an ethnoreligion, with various what we would call missionaries over its long existence

You can still have it consider Christianity and Islam to be hostile or evil though. Maimonides, brought up again for being one of the great, definitive sages of the time, had a lot to say on this, and considered these two to be the continuation of Babylon, Greece, and Rome, two distinct efforts that exist specifically to undermine the authenticity of Jewish custom and law, and whose ultimate goal was the destruction of Jews. Reflecting on that, a rather strong negative opinion is perfectly fair representation.

I'd reccomend reading "The Myth of the Andalucian Paradise" (2016) for a counter thesis on both Maimonides specifically and rabbinic tolerance in general of Karaites compared to the quite rosy image you paint here

 

[Karlingid]

By foreign occupation do you mean the long term rulers of the byzantines, rather than the persians and arabs they sided with?

Accepting them into a larger grouping is long how its been, but that doesnt mean equals. As befitting a group who's origin in some mythos is that of half caste israelites, a permanent reminder of assyrian and babylonian conquest and captivity

Why is it the Tsar's fault that hostility between Karaites and Rabbinic Jews was as hostile as had been in previous centuries?

"You will never be equal to us, always as bad as the worst of us" actually sounds like a very low standing

Evil lets you imprison those that refuse conversion, which is quite fitting to Karaite treatment at rabbinic hands

Because you can be of the same culture eg andalucian, and treat each other differently

Its the same as no latin for Catholics or arabic for Muslims or greek for the orthodox

Abrahamic gnostics are, other gnostics arent

Its an ethnoreligious identity nowadays, but that doesnt make it merely an ethnoreligion, with various what we would call missionaries over its long existence

I'd reccomend reading "The Myth of the Andalucian Paradise" (2016) for a counter thesis on both Maimonides specifically and rabbinic tolerance in general of Karaites compared to the quite rosy image you paint here

1) Yes. Poor phrasing, I suppose.

2) Refer to sources cited

3) Because that wasn't the case. In the 18th-20th centuries, the rift absolutely grew larger as a factor of external antisemitism. Yivo mentions this trend beginning under the regime of the Tsar. From the same source, Karaites in the 15th century, reaching Lithuania for the first time extended their special protections to Rabbinic Jews. They also paid taxes through the Rabbinic institutions. This did also cause friction, which is described as "sometimes". It provides a history of how Karaites gained exemptions from rules imposed on other Jews, until the time of Avraam Firkovich, when the identities began to schism entirely.

4) This is ignorant of the context of Jewish culture and identity. Inclusion is a rather serious matter, and it's not "the worst of us." It's a basic recognition of the fact that there were certain ritual distinctions which could cause issue with the handling of things. Unlike treating them as plain gentiles, this classification completely removed the notion of intentional, malicious sabotage of ritual goods. This was also, for a significant time, the classification held by the greater share of Jews, who were farmers in those days. "People of the Land".

5) Since when? According to who? Rabbinic authorities never imprisoned Karaites. The communities lived alongside one another, such that when Maimonides showed up as Prince, they were mingling quite freely and intermarriage was actually quite common. It was he that ruled that they could continue to mingle socially in all contexts, while reinforcing the spiritual barrier between congregations. The Cairo Geniza, full of Rabbanite documents, even includes Karaite ones like the Letter of the Karaite Elders in Ascalon. Elijah Bashyazi in the 15th century effectively set his own table and used Rabbanite references and discussions in his listings as well as Karaite ones.

6) I fail to see your point. Practitioners of Haymanot were treated as full Jews by contemporary rabbanim, despite their ritual differences. They were redeemed when taken captive. The cultural difference between Ethiopian and Sephardi or Bavli would be sufficient to make up the difference. Since Ashkenazi and Sephardi and Radhanite and Bavli and Kochini are all already in the game as well, and they largely relate to regional customary differences and some language shifting, this is where the greater share of friction in historic - and often even current - Jewish society comes from. Maybe someone who never saw a Samaritan might have some issues, but contemporary Jews tell us their communities, where applicable, lived alongside Samaritans without any trouble, and the same largely goes for Karaites in this period.

7) A bit of a difference. While true that Catholics can't learn Latin, and honestly I think that should be a possibility, it's still possible to learn Greek and Arabic pretty easily. Especially Arabic. Greek, though, wasn't an exclusive Orthodox language. They used local languages too. Much like Latin, though, Hebrew was a language of poetry, science, commerce, philosophy, and to some extent diplomacy during this period, and was actively used to bridge gaps where different communities spoke different languages otherwise.

8) Pedantry.

9) What missionaries? The Khazars and Himyarites both converted, possibly with political motivations to provide a neutral ground between the Roman and Persian (or Islamic) worlds. Neither formed a majority of Jews, neither really stuck with it once their political power was taken away. Some modern groups practice outreach to fellow Jews to encourage a more observant lifestyle. Some accept Noahidism. The Hasmoneans did do a couple forced conversions, but more or less exclusively on people of Jewish origin who had become thoroughly Hellenized. The exception there are Edomites, who were extremely closely related. So close that one of the priestly families of the Temple was from Edom. Apart from the Hasmonean case, the 'national conversions' are isolated incidents that probably didn't extend beyond the elite, were not especially lasting, and didn't represent proselytizing activity in the same way that Christians converted entire nations one by one, or how Muslims propagated Islam along trade routes or by socioeconomic incentive. Jewish law has had magnitudes more cases of treatises defending it against outside forces than it does cases of any organized authority intentionally converting gentiles. Discouraging conversion is pretty much one of the core tenets, as a matter of fact. There have been several times where it was outright forbidden to accept conversions at all, and some groups today still adhere to that.


10) 44 page rebuttal, including, critically, the fact that there was no large, enduring Karaite community in Spain. While their ideas may have held significant influence in the sort of discussions Rabbanite scholars had, the actual, physical presence of a significant Karaite community is more suggestion than fact. To quote: "He writes about Karaite Jews and Judaism in Spain not only through gross misrepresentations of the state of the question but, of even greater consequence, by misunderstanding and misrepresenting not only Karaite Judaism but its relationship with other Judaisms and the other Abrahamic faiths. His Karaite coda to chapter six of the work is an example not only of bad history and historiography but also basic errors of fact."

The book also covers the case of Iberian history and interactions, not that of Egypt where the overwhelming majority of Rabbanite-Karaite overlap existed. Maimonides provides not only a firsthand account by the fact of having been there and thinking and living as one of the world's leading Rabbanite leaders of the time, but also his rulings are the definitive rulings that governed Rabbanite-Karaite interactions, because he was the man who led Rabbanite Jews in this time. While there is a tendency to paint Andalusia as a much more tolerant place than it realistically was, this has legitimately nothing to do with Intra-Jewish relations. Moreover, his telling of the Jewish narrative is riddled with Christocentrism, which only propagates the very same supercessionist ideals that medieval Jews fought so hard against, and Jews still struggle against to this day.

 

[Karlingid]

Looking at how the game defines the terms Righteous, Astray, Hostile, and Evil, Samaritans should absolutely not be considered Astray. They should remain in the hostile category and I would argue that there are even arguments to classify them as "Evil". Astray is supposed represent faiths that differ in a insignificant way. Intermarriages are permitted and holy wars are not allowed against each other. Hostile represents faiths that deviate significantly. Intermarriages are permitted and holy wars are allowed against each other. The theological differences between rabbinical Judaism and Samaritanism is significant enough to be considered at least "Hostile". Intermarriage was not allowed with Samaritans and the Jews under John Hyrcanus waged war on the Samaritanism and destroyed their Temple on Mount Gerizim.

Reading your JSTOR article, the claimed Israelite-origin of the Samaritans was very much in question at that time. While some considered them as Jews, others did not. A common phrase for the Samaritans in Jewish texts was the pejorative phrase, Kutim, instead of their self-designation of Shamerim. Kutim, also translated as Cuthites or Kutheans, refers to the people of Kutha that were resettled into the former lands of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians according to the Book of Kings. Calling the Samaritans the Kutim shows that the Jews did not consider the Samaritans as fellow Jews but foreigners. The paper also suggests that the relations between the Jews and Samaritans also got worse throughout time. From the very last paragraph of the text:



From later period texts, we can see that the Kutim were not considered to be Jews at all.
If you look at the Chullin 6a was written after the the Tannaitic period, the Samaritans were eventually considered as full-fledged Gentiles. This was due to a supposed incident where the Samaritans were worshiping a dove-shaped idol on the Mount Gerizim, making them idolaters.
https://www.sefaria.org/Chullin.6a?lang=bi


Jews were not allowed to intermarry with them and they were able to lend or borrow money from the Samaritans. This is from the Tractate Kutim, written during the Talmudic period.
https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Kutim?tab=contents

The JSTOR also covers that in a later time, the agenda of certain individuals may have been retroactively applied. That in many cases, rulings weren't so much changed, as they swapped in Kutim where previously it indicated gentiles broadly. Moreover, I would point out again that after the composition of Gemara, Jews and Samaritans were working together in common cause once more against Roman authority. The Samaritan population had shrunk so much by the medieval period that it's hard to speak with certainty about them, which is why I must rely on small mentions like that of Benjamin of Tudela who witnesses that Jews and Samaritans in the Levant intermingled freely, though did not intermarry by his time. This letter from a 15th century Italqi also offers some minor insight. According to the letter, there were 800 Rabbanite households in Cairo in 1481, 150 Karaite, and 50 Samaritan, roughly 95% of the Israelites there being Jewish. He declares that Samaritans follow some of the written law, which potentially corroborates another claim I had read that there was, in this time period, a Samaritan acceptance of some Jewish arguments and midrashim. A common concept of the period that Samaritans were effectively 'a type of Jew' is reflected not only in the writings of Benjamin, but also this merchant's letter, which states that Samaritans were incorporated under the Jewish Nagid.

Benjamin's writings are a rare account of actually considering the Samaritans, and he tallies them as he does other Israelite communities, unlike gentile communities that he doesn't bother with. He does call them Kutim but gives wholehearted legitimacy to their priesthood as Aaronites. He says they follow the Torah of Moses, but refers often to "their torah", which would relate to the meaning of "torah" as instruction, particularly the writings and scholarship of a culture, patrilineal in both groups, compared to the matrilineal customs, ritual, and communal belonging of Jewish Yahadut. He flip-flops on their status, accepting at one point their claim to be from Ephraim without dispute, then in another moment saying they are not the blood of Israel. In another instance, he says "there are no Jews, and a few hundred Kutim", but elsewhere calls them "Jews of Shromron". It appears to Benjamin, and possibly wider High Medieval Jewish thought, the question was still not really settled.

The commonality of the communities under a single leadership evidently goes back to was also true during the 11th century. From the same source, Jews and Samaritans shared a cemetery, though the source attributes this to the small size of the Samaritan community there. Nonetheless, this implies that such was acceptable at all. A Samaritan kohen's letter was found in the Cairo Geniza, and a Samaritan was taken as a valid witness for a Jewish contract. Corroborating Benjamin's account of friendly relations, the author here presents that in 12th century Egypt, it was much the same.

Sources are ultimately scarce. The Samaritans themselves didn't keep fantastic records on inter-communal relations, and they were so few that Jewish records of this were scarce. However, available evidence points to continued affiliation of some degree, and generally friendly relations unlike those shared with Muslim authorities.

 

[EasternTiger]

The thing is the most positive accounts of the Samaritans during this time such as the aforementioned Benjamin of Tudela considered them as quasi-Jews while other sources considered them as Gentiles. The Jewish/Israelite nature of the Samaritans was very much in question, and sometimes outright denied. This is not what the in-game term of "Astray" is supposed to represent. For example, in-game the Catholics and the Orthodox consider each other astray. The Catholics and the Orthodox, while they did have minor theological differences that led to the Great Schism, both would have acknowledged each other as fellow legitimate Christians. On the other hand, Jews and Samaritans agreed to disagree and both insisted that Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim was the true legitimate place for the Holy Temple and that the other was wrong. Intermarriages between Catholics and Orthodox happened historically whileas the Jews and the Samaritans did not intermarry with each other. One of the many reasons for the gradual decline of the Samaritans during the last half of the 2th millennium was their refusal of intermarriage. Only recently in modern times, with the acceptance of intermarriage with non-Samaritan women, did the Samaritan population slowly start to increase.

The JSTOR also covers that in a later time, the agenda of certain individuals may have been retroactively applied. That in many cases, rulings weren't so much changed, as they swapped in Kutim where previously it indicated gentiles broadly.

This is indeed true, but the sources I cited about Kutim by the rabbinical sages clearly indicate that they were talking about the Samaritans, instead of some other Gentiles. Chullin 6a, from the Talmud is clearly about the Samaritans, as indicated by the reference to Mount Gerizim.

Spoiler: Passage from Chullin 6a

As for the Tractate Kutim, it is clearly about the Samaritans as well. The last sentences of the Tractate Kutim mention that Samaritans can be accepted as Jews, only when they renounce key Samaritan beliefs (on denying resurrection of the dead and the site of the Temple on Gerizim) and convert to Rabbinical theology.

Moreover, I would point out again that after the composition of Gemara, Jews and Samaritans were working together in common cause once more against Roman authority.

As @apollo1989vieten stated, this should be seen more as the enemy of my enemy is friend rather than Jews accepting Samaritans as authentic descendants of Israel. The Samaritans and the Jews were both oppressed by the Christian Byzantines, and in 556, they did rise up together for once. However, usually they did not revolt together. In fact, one of the reasons hostilities between the Jews and Samaritans grew was due to the fact that they usually did not help each other during revolts against foreign occupation. During the Gallus revolt by the Jews, Theopanes the Confessor writes that the Jews killed many aliens, including pagans and Samaritans. In 529, the Samaritans under Julianus ben Sabar started a large-scale revolt against the Romans. According to The Samaritans: A Profile by Reinhard Plummer, "The Samaritans attacked Christians and Jews, setting many parts of Scythopolis on fire, burning numerous estates and churches, and crowning one of theirs by the name of Julian".


Looking at some other sources from the CK3 timeline, we have the Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer, which dates from around the 8th-9th century. In Chapter 38 of this text, it states the following:

Spoiler: Section from the Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer

The Cutheans are not considered as a nation of the seventy languages, but they were the remnant of the five nations precious to the king, as it is said, "And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel"

Rabbi José said: He added four more nations to them, and they were in all nine nations, as it is said, "The Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations… set in the city of Samaria"


And when the Israelites were exiled from Samaria to Babylon, the king sent his servants, and he caused them to dwell in Samaria, to raise tribute for (his) kingdom. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He sent lions among them, || which killed some of them, as it is said, "And so it was, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the Lord: therefore the Lord sent lions among them, which killed some of them". They sent to the king, saying: Our lord, the king ! The land whither thou hast sent us will not receive us, for we are left but a few out of many. The king sent and called for all the elders of Israel, and said to them: All those years during which ye were in your land, the beasts of the field did not bereave you, and now it will not receive my servants. They gave him a word of advice, (thinking) perhaps he would restore them to their land. They said to him: Our lord, O king! That land does not receive a nation who do not study the Torah; behold, that land does not receive a nation who are not circumcised. The king said to them: Give me two of you, who shall go and circumcise them and teach them the book of the Torah; and there is no refusal to the word of the king. They sent Rabbi Dosethai of the Court-House, and Rabbi Micaiah, and they circumcised them, and they taught them the book of the Torah in the Noṭariḳon script, and they wept. Those nations followed the statutes of the Torah, and they served (also) their own gods.

When Ezra came up (with) Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua, || son of Jehozadak, they began to build the Temple of the Lord, as it is said, "Then rose up Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and began to build the house of God" (Ezra 5:2). And the Samaritans came against them to fight (with) 180,000 (men). Were they Samaritans? Were they not Cutheans? But they were called Samaritans because of the city of Samaria. And further, they sought to kill Nehemiah, as it is said, "Come, let us meet together in one of the villages,… but they thought to do me mischief" (Neh. 6:2). Moreover, they made the work of the Lord to cease for two years ["Then ceased the work of the house of God, which is at Jerusalem]; and it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia"


What did Ezra, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua son of Jehozadak, do? They gathered all the congregation to the Temple of the Lord, and they brought 800 priests, 800 children, and 800 scrolls of the Torah in their hands, and they blew (the trumpets), and the Levites sang songs and praises, and they excommunicated the Cutheans with the mystery of the Ineffable Name, and with the script such as was written upon the tables (of the Law), and by the ban of the heavenly Court of Justice, and by the ban of the earthly Court of Justice (decreeing) that no one of Israel should eat the bread of the Cutheans. Hence (the sages) said: Everyone who eats the bread of the Cutheans is as though he had eaten of the flesh of swine. Let no man make a proselyte in Israel from among the Cutheans. They have no || portion in the resurrection of the dead, as it is said, "Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God", neither in this world, nor in the world to come. So that they should have neither portion nor inheritance in Israel, as it is said, "But ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem".


They sent the ban (letter) to the Israelites who were in Babylon. Moreover, they added an additional ban upon them, and King Cyrus ordained it as a perpetual ban upon them, (as it is said,) "And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there overthrow all kings and peoples that shall put forth their hand to alter the same, to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I, Darius, have made a decree; let it be done with all diligence"

Sefaria link: https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_DeRabbi_Eliezer.38?lang=bi


The fact is that the Jews could not intermarry a Samaritan, they could not eat the bread of the Samaritans, the wine of the Samaritans was treated as the same as the wine of the Gentiles. While the small population of the Samaritans left after Byzantine rule were often grouped with the Jews, this was due to the actions of foreign overlords who did not really care about the differences between the Samaritans and the Jews. Plummer writes that "For tax purposes the Samaritans were seen by the Ottoman authorities as part of the Jews." and gives the example of an Ottoman firman where the "Samiri" are those belonging to the Jews. However, the more educated were aware of the differences between them, such as an example of the Mufti of Jerusalem in c. 1700. According to Plummer "In reply, all fatwas [from the mufti] conclude that the Samaritans belong to the People of the Book; they believe in the Torah, although in some details theirs differs from that of the Jews, and they are convinced that their text is more accurate than the Jewish and Christian versions; their prophet is Moses; they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in heaven and hell; and they confess the unity of God. One fatwa even claims that the Samaritans acknowledge that Muḥammad is a prophet, albeit one who was sent to the Arabs."

I think the most important thing is finally is that Samaritans do not consider themselves as Jews. Making them simply just Astray of Rabbanical Judaism, just like the practices of Kochinim, Khazars, and the Beta Israelis, seems to portray the Samaritans as just a subsect of Judaism rather than its own religion with its rich, deep history.

 

[Karlingid]

The fact is that the Jews could not intermarry a Samaritan, they could not eat the bread of the Samaritans, the wine of the Samaritans was treated as the same as the wine of the Gentiles. While the small population of the Samaritans left after Byzantine rule were often grouped with the Jews, this was due to the actions of foreign overlords who did not really care about the differences between the Samaritans and the Jews. Plummer writes that "For tax purposes the Samaritans were seen by the Ottoman authorities as part of the Jews." and gives the example of an Ottoman firman where the "Samiri" are those belonging to the Jews. However, the more educated were aware of the differences between them, such as an example of the Mufti of Jerusalem in c. 1700. According to Plummer "In reply, all fatwas [from the mufti] conclude that the Samaritans belong to the People of the Book; they believe in the Torah, although in some details theirs differs from that of the Jews, and they are convinced that their text is more accurate than the Jewish and Christian versions; their prophet is Moses; they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in heaven and hell; and they confess the unity of God. One fatwa even claims that the Samaritans acknowledge that Muḥammad is a prophet, albeit one who was sent to the Arabs."

I think the most important thing is finally is that Samaritans do not consider themselves as Jews. Making them simply just Astray of Rabbanical Judaism, just like the practices of Kochinim, Khazars, and the Beta Israelis, seems to portray the Samaritans as just a subsect of Judaism rather than its own religion with its rich, deep history.

I'm getting a little tired of the continual back and forth going on, so I will break this down to the core argument: this isn't intended to be a straight application of what the geonim were decrying in judgement, but the practical situation of the time, which suggests more or less peaceful coexistence and cohabitation between the groups. This is not found in the words of scholars ruling on legal status, but in the everyday documents, notes, and references. Just as Iberian rabbanim held strong discourse about Karaites while having so few actually around them, while the largest overlap of Rabbanites and Karaites - in Egypt - effectively ignored the differences between them entirely up to and including intermarriage with ketubot outlining how each partner gets to celebrate the festivals on their own day by accordance with their affiliation. This was the average state of affairs, despite the scholars.

While documentation from this time is scarce regarding this, Benjamin and the Cairo Geniza offer a glimpse into the situation of average people and how they interacted. While it's true that there doesn't seem to be the intermarriage that existed between Rabbanites and Karaites until Rambam stepped up, otherwise there's little indication of particular continuing hostility between these groups.

And, as I mentioned earlier as one of the fundamental points of this thread in the first place, I'm also of the opinion that the Kochinim, Beta Israel, and the Khazars, should be considered righteous by Rabbanites. The Kochinim and Beta Israel were fundamentally accepted in whole by the medieval Rabbinic establishment, seen as not any less part of the paradigm than the communal differences between the Rhineland, Iberia, and Babylon. While the Beta Israel at least had their distinct nature noticed and commented on, the final ruling was in their favor, and the Jewish community of Egypt (the most likely to come into contact with them) treated them accordingly, ransomed them , and so on. There wasn't really any friction with the Kochinim either. Even in later history, it was nothing worse than, say, in Morocco, between the S&P and the older Mista'arvim. Meanwhile, with regard to the Khazars, the story seems much the same: although it might've been a small selection of nobles, it was appreciated and welcomed as a place of refuge, and the idea of the Khazars inspired hope across B'nai Yisra'el. They already have a cultural penalty anyway, so why must they be considered 'wrong' when they were, at the time, looked to with hope and acceptance?

By contrast, my proposal still offers the Karaites and Samaritans a bit of distance - just one that reflects a common coexistence, even if scholarly strife. "Astray" is a funny thing anyway, Catholic and Orthodox are "only" astray, but then you've got the Massacre of the Latins. You got an awful lot of friction between the Roman Church and the Bosnian Church, such that local practices were considered worthy of abjuration and even crusade, and compared to heretics 'outright' like Bogomils, and was targeted by the Franciscans and the Inquisition for a time. The Almohads put some fellow Sunnis to the sword. Within living memory of the 867 start, only a bit more than a decade, the Mu'tazili Caliph cracked down on other Sunni schools of thought. Even in its latest form, after the excesses of the Caliph were brought to heel by popular sentiment, he banned the permissibility of non-Mu'tazili individuals giving testimony and acting as witnesses. This is something that, if the Cairo Geniza is to be believed, is actually a worse relation than the Jews and Samaritans of Egypt. And yet, this is still within "Astray" parameters. A bit later in history, the Mu'tazili adherents were persecuted alongside Shi'ites, Jews, and Christians, by people who in game terms are "Astray". Siddhartha wasn't exactly a friend of Hindu priests, and Hindu and Buddhist debates were less than friendly through history even if their adherents could live relatively peacefully beside one another.

To be "Astray" is to incur a -10 opinion penalty, and a -15 popular opinion penalty. Given the seeming day to day reality, I really am of the honest belief that this is enough. Those who are more distant to them, not of the same Bavli culture, will have more friction because of that unfamiliarity, and similar goes for Beta Israel and Khazars. We seem to agree on making it a step more than the relation between Rabbinic Jews. I just believe that this is enough to represent the common daily interactions and on-the-ground reality alluded to through this period in what might be loosely termed 'secular' documentation (regarding daily life and community records).