"I am sorry to have hurt your religious beliefs. Seriously, are you asking me to find sources when you have none? Are you aware that ""Wikipedia is not a democracy""? Refer to WP:POLL. I do not see the consensus. I agree with the oldest surviving monotheistic religion part but I completely disagree with the claim of Judaism being the oldest surviving religion for two reasons:
1) There is no scholarly source making this claim apart from some anonymous (Jewish?) child who has uploaded some pdf file on a website that has zero credibility. Are you serious? I still am shocked to see that you guys are defending an anonymous kid's high school homework paper as a legitimate source of knowledge, to be honorably quoted on the Wikipedia.
2) Credible sources (like Encyclopaedia Britannica ) are saying that another religion is the oldest surviving religion. On the Wikipedia article on Hinduism, the exact same claim is made but with reliable sources (See WP:SOURCES):
Among its direct roots is the  historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India and, as such, Hinduism is often called the ""oldest living religion""D. S. Sarma, Kenneth W. Morgan, The Religion of the Hindus, 1953 or the ""oldest living major religion"" in the world.in the world.
 
So, my question is: which page on the Wikipedia is to be trusted in this regard? The one with reliable scholarly sources or the one with anonymous self-published pdf files? I still do not understand why the name of the authors are not given and they are considered scholarly sources. Where were these cited works published? Where are the references in the works? These essays are saying ""God made a pact with Abraham..."" and so forth. How can this be even taken seriously if the article is assuming that all the God pact story is actual historical fact? Any way, that's the besides the main point. The real issues here are reliable sources, self-published sources, verifiability and original research (by anonymous teenage prodigal scholars).

Now let us examine the scholar ""noel12"" from Texas who wrote this high school homework paper. On the cited source, the said scholar claims to be 15  at the time of writing this scholarly article. Do we still need to talk about WP:V in this regard? The other cited source (a music website run by Jewish people) does not even have a title or name of the author or date of publication or anything except the bold claim that Judaism is the oldest religion.

Please do not take this personally or anything (I really wish to stress this twice); I just like to see Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia. Is it more about reflecting personal sentiments or providing credible knowledge, cited with scholarly sources?

In summary, I say that the uncited claim of Judaism being the oldest surviving religion be removed, while keeping the oldest monotheistic religion part and keep Wikipedia a serious, unbiased encyclopedia. Hope I have appealed to your better judgement.
70.64.86.187  

"