A Jewish New Testament

[StJeanneDArc]

I just finished reading an article about Benjamin Disraeli, which you can access here: weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/198cdapm.asp

I’ll excerpt the part I found fascinating and am questioning:

Nonetheless: If he did love Judaism, why did he not return to it? He spoke up loud and clear for a Jew’s right to sit in Parliament. But when he was first elected, Jews had yet to win that right. Had he remained Jewish, his political career might have died in the womb. But he was a proud, courageous, defiant man. If he had concluded that Judaism was right for him, he would have been unable to keep himself from leaping back in with both feet. He didn’t because of a mistake; he was misinformed.

Monypenny and Buckle write of “Disraeli’s great conception of Christianity as completed Judaism.” Theologically, this was his central belief. The Hebrew Bible was sublime but incomplete. He was struck by the fact that Jesus, asked to summarize Christianity, cited two verses from the Hebrew Bible; in ethical terms Christianity, he believed, boils down to Judaism. Yet he also believed that the Hebrew Bible could not be the basis of a modern religion all by itself. Its basic ideas are right for all time, but the details were intended only for Jews of the distant past. Softening, mellowing, tempering were called for to turn this rough powerful steel into a safe instrument for the modern world. This Jewish sword had to be beaten into a universal plowshare. And if Jews would only just accept this (so painfully obvious!) truth, they would understand that the New Testament is the essential completion of the Hebrew Bible. And naturally they would all become Christian.

The strange irony is that Jews do accept the main part of this argument and always have. They have always regarded the Hebrew Bible as “incomplete.” Have always regarded the idea that you could base your whole life on it as naive and wrong. But normative Judaism regards the Talmud, the “spoken Torah,” as possessing the same sanctity and canonicity as the Hebrew Bible (or “written Torah”). Under this doctrine, the Talmud accomplishes what Disraeli conceived the New Testament as accomplishing. Exactly.

The Talmud is the “New Testament” of the Jews. The analogy is precise. Jews have no need for a New Testament because they already have one. Disraeli misunderstood, but pointed the way (accidentally) to a deep religious truth.

What to make of this? My husband (who is now Catholic) was raised a nominal Jew and I asked him about this, and he said he didn’t know enough about the Talmud to answer. Perhaps some of our Jewish friends on this board could comment on this.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Any takers on this? I keep seeing really thoughtful posts from Still Small Voice, and I was hoping to see one on this thread. Do we have any more educated Jews on the forum?

 

[quaysman]

Sorry, I’m not familiar with Disraeli’s views on Christianity… But that is fascinating… Thanks for the post…

Grace & Peace

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

StJeanneDArc, thank you for your kind remark.

The strange irony is that Jews do accept the main part of this argument and always have. They have always regarded the Hebrew Bible as “incomplete.” Have always regarded the idea that you could base your whole life on it as naive and wrong. But normative Judaism regards the Talmud, the “spoken Torah,” as possessing the same sanctity and canonicity as the Hebrew Bible (or “written Torah”). Under this doctrine, the Talmud accomplishes what Disraeli conceived the New Testament as accomplishing. Exactly.

The Talmud is the “New Testament” of the Jews. The analogy is precise. Jews have no need for a New Testament because they already have one. Disraeli misunderstood, but pointed the way (accidentally) to a deep religious truth.

Hmm, I’ll admit that I have never thought about it this way before. But the more I do think about the more sense it makes. I’ve referred to our concept of an Oral Torah before here on CAF, but I’ll repost the short version here. I cite jewfaq.org/torah.htm:

In addition to the written scriptures we have an “Oral Torah,” a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained in oral form only until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E.

There are actually two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian one is more comprehensive, and is the one most people mean when they refer to The Talmud. There have been additional commentaries on the Talmud by such noted Jewish scholars as Rashi and Rambam.

We believe in an unbroken chain of tradition going all the way back to Moses our Teacher that is at the heart of our belief in an Oral Torah as well. We believe that God gave both a Written and an Oral Torah to Moses. As per the above excerpt, the Talmud is a major codification of the Oral Torah. Through these (now written down) oral traditions, we understand how to understand the text of the Written Torah. (Ferinstance, the Oral Torah tells us that the adage “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.,” was never meant to be taken literally but instead means that someone who gouges out another’s eye must compensate him monetarily for the loss of his eye. The Oral Torah tells us about the kosher method of slaughtering animals, referred to in passing in Deuteronomy 12:21. Etc. etc.) I always refer people to these two articles (http://tinyurl.com/2ffy8 and http://tinyurl.com/2uyfp) for a good intro on this very key Jewish concept.

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

As orthodox Jews, we believe any attempt to understand the Written Torah without the benefit of the Oral Torah is futile, can only give rise to vast misunderstandings about what the Written Torah means & will necessarily leave one with a warped & stunted view of the scripture means. It’s like trying to pry two halves of a single coin apart, you two pieces of metal that, by themselves, are worth nothing. We see the Written Torah & the Oral Torah as two inseparable halves of a greater whole, much like, I think, Christians see the “Old” and “New” Testaments. Yes, the analogy fits; the above excerpt from StJeanneDArc’s first post is entirely correct.

StJeanneDArc, take five stars & a whole box of (kosher, of course ) chocolate chip cookies for your very insightful post! Well done!

Be well!

ssv

 

[StJeanneDArc]

quote=stillsmallvoice

As orthodox Jews, we believe any attempt to understand the Written Torah without the benefit of the Oral Torah is futile, can only give rise to vast misunderstandings about what the Written Torah means & will necessarily leave one with a warped & stunted view of the scripture means. It’s like trying to pry two halves of a single coin apart, you two pieces of metal that, by themselves, are worth nothing. We see the Written Torah & the Oral Torah as two inseparable halves of a greater whole, much like, I think, Christians see the “Old” and “New” Testaments. Yes, the analogy fits; the above excerpt from StJeanneDArc’s first post is entirely correct.

StJeanneDArc, take five stars & a whole box of (kosher, of course ) chocolate chip cookies for your very insightful post! Well done!

Be well!

ssv

[/quote]

Thank you so much for responding. I wish I could take credit for the insight, but it wasn’t mine, it was David Gerlenter’s.

Your explanation of the Talmud is excellent–for the first time I know what it is. I don’t however, think that the analogy fits for reasons I’ll explain in a minute. First let me say that somebody’s concept of the New Testament is off, I don’t know if it was Disraeli’s, or Moneypenny’s and Buckle’s (who wrote Disraeli’s biography) or David Gerlenter’s (who wrote the article in the Weekly Standard). The New Testament is not simply a softening or mellowing of the Old, but a whole new theology which includes the theology of the Old and adds a lot of new things to it (the Trinity being the most obvious example).

Here’s the best part! Now that I know what the Talmud is, I propose a much better analogy: the Talmud is to Judaism what the Catholic Church is to Christianity. Christians cannot independently interpret scripture, relying only on the Bible–we see that it leads to chaos and 20,000+ protestant denominations. But we have much more than the New Testament–we have the oral traditions, the Church Fathers and the teaching magisterium of the Church. That’s our Talmud.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi StJeanneDArc!

First, thank you for overlooking my poor editing in the section of my post that you cited. I left out a “what” (as in “a warped & stunted view of what the scripture means”) and a “get” (as in “you get two pieces of metal that”).

You posted:

Thank you so much for responding.

You’re welcome!

Your explanation of the Talmud is excellent–

Thank you!

for the first time I know what it is.

Good!

I don’t however, think that the analogy fits…The New Testament is not simply a softening or mellowing of the Old, but a whole new theology which includes the theology of the Old and adds a lot of new things to it (the Trinity being the most obvious example).

Correct. When I first read this, I thought to myself, “Well, the analogy is clse enough,” but then I read:

Here’s the best part! Now that I know what the Talmud is, I propose a much better analogy: the Talmud is to Judaism what the Catholic Church is to Christianity. Christians cannot independently interpret scripture, relying only on the Bible–we see that it leads to chaos and 20,000+ protestant denominations. But we have much more than the New Testament–we have the oral traditions, the Church Fathers and the teaching magisterium of the Church. That’s our Talmud.

Wow. You don’t get a whole box of (kosher, of course ) chocolate chip cookies; for this you get stock in Nabisco! Excellent! Very good! Original! Well said!

Raymond Brown has written:

The Roman Catholic Church (and this would be true of the Eastern Churches as well) places a strong emphasis on the value of traditional faith attested through the ages. The reason for this emphasis is a belief that Christ through the Spirit continues to guide the church and will not allow it to err seriously in what it demands of its people by way of doctrinal and moral commitment. Therefore, when in the name of private interpretation of Scripture, someone stands up and says “What you have believed by way of doctrine for five centuries, or ten cenuries, or twenty centuries is all wrong; you must give that up because here is how I interpret the Bible,” the Catholic Church has resisted. The type of private interpretation that the Catholic Church distrusts involves doctrinal statements based on interpretations of the Bible that deny what has been taught in the creeds or in the official pronouncements of the church.

As an orthodox Jew, I can agree with much of what raymond Brown has said. Our approach is very similar to that of Roman Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy.

If 100,000 Jews people drew 100,000 conclusions from the Tanakh (what we call what Christians call the "Old Testament), we would have communal anarchy very soon; indeed an organized, cohesive community would be all but impossible under such circumstances. The sheer mass of 100,000 inherently subjective, idiosyncratic it-seems-to-me’s (this would be Judaism’s equivalent of the,“chaos and 20,000+ protestant denominations,” that you mentioned) would forestall and frustrate any communal cohesion. There has to be some way whereby the community can formulate/agree on basic principles acceptable to all which can help serve as glue to bind the community. A “people of the Book” has to be able to agree, at least to a certain extent, on what the Book means.

As orthodox Jews, we believe that the origins of the vast body of Jewish interpretive and exegetical literature is rooted in the Torah itself. Deuteronomy 27:2-8 says:

And it shall be on the day when you shall pass over the Jordan unto the land which the Lord your God gives you, that you shall set you up great stones, and plaster them with plaster. And you shall write upon them all the words of this Torah…And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this Torah very plainly.

Our Sages comment on the seemingly redundant phrase very plainly. Not believing that it refers to the clarity of the etching in the plaster (that being obvious), our Sages say that it means that the Torah had to be interpreted/commented upon so that it could be easily & plainly understood by all, by each person in accordance with his/her abilities.

(cont.)

 

[stillsmallvoice]

(cont.)

We see this in action in Nehemiah 8:7-8.

Also Joshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, even the Levites, caused the people to understand the Torah; and the people stood in their place. And they read in the book, in the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Who may interpret, expound, teach & cause to understand? Only one who is steeped in tradition and who has studied & delved into the text in great depth. (See Deuteronomy 17:8-11). This is an awesome responsibility. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Elazar from Modi’in (2nd century CE) as saying that:

He who profanes sacred things, slights the festivals, puts his fellow man to shame in public, repudiates the Covenant of Abraham our Father, or misinterprets the Torah, even though he has Torah and good deeds to his credit, he has no share in the world-to-come.

Our Sages, i.e. those who are steeped in tradition and who have studied & delved into the text in great depth, are the bearers & keepers of these oral traditions & thus they are uniquely qualified to authoritatively interpret the Tanakh. Thus, our Sages, the teachings of whom constitute the Talmud, fulfill a role very similar to that fulfilled by the Catholic Church, as you pointed out.

Be well!

ssv

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Thank you, SSV, for the lovely compliment. I have to attribute any insights to the Holy Spirit, though.

Your further explanations of the value of the Talmud are very helpful. I will show this to my husband who will be very interested in the insights of an Orthodox Jew. My husband grew up as a reformed Jew in a mixed marriage. His mother is not Jewish, although sympathetic to Judaism and allowed her children to be raised Jewish. His father came from an Orthodox family that decided quite suddenly not to be Kosher any more and so became reformed. My husband always referred to it as the protestant branch of Judaism, and now I see why. Once people go off on their own in interpretation of holy scripture, chaos is the result, as we see very clearly in the Jewish community in America.

 

[Ghosty]

Such a timely discussion! I have recently been discussing the similarities between the Talmud and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a Jewish friend of mine, and just today as I sat down to read the forums he brought me over a copy of the Yoma from the 1974 Hebrew-English Soncino Press edition of the Talmud!

For those unfamiliar with the Talmud, the Gemara is literally written “around” the text of the Mishnah, so that in the center of the page you have the Mishnah, the original recording of the oral tradition, with the writings of the Sages such as Rashi as a kind of border. This particular version keeps that format, with the English translation of the Mishnah and Gemara on the opposing page. My friend was telling me that he also has a version somewhere in which the English layout is identical to the Hebrew, which is something I’d love to have! Now I have to return the favor by giving him a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would definately agree that the Talmud fills the role of the Church more than the role of the New Testament, and that the most solid analog to the Talmud is the Catechism, though they are not identical in style (the Catechism collects references to the writings of sages rather than having them directly in the text, but it basically serves the same function as the Gemara and Mishnah combined).

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

StJeanneDArc, you posted;

Thank you, SSV, for the lovely compliment.

You’re welcome.

Your further explanations of the value of the Talmud are very helpful.

Good!

I will show this to my husband who will be very interested in the insights of an Orthodox Jew. My husband grew up as a reformed Jew in a mixed marriage. His mother is not Jewish, although sympathetic to Judaism and allowed her children to be raised Jewish. His father came from an Orthodox family that decided quite suddenly not to be Kosher any more and so became reformed. My husband always referred to it as the protestant branch of Judaism, and now I see why. Once people go off on their own in interpretation of holy scripture, chaos is the result, as we see very clearly in the Jewish community in America.

I’ll repeat myself from nother thread. Traditional, normative Judaism is orthodox (orthodoxy being a far broader spectrum than many non-Jews, and many non-orthodox Jews, seem to realize; see jewfaq.org/movement.htm#US for a good summary on orthodoxy & the other, so-called, “movements” within Judaism). The Reform & Conservative “movements” are newfangled movements that developed in Europe (in Protestant northern Germany), in reaction to the Enlightenment. They have junked so many core Jewish beliefs and, in effect, make it up as they go along, influenced by whatever happens to be trendy at the moment & taking care to be “politically correct”. This is Judaism??!! I grew up, as I like to say, de jure Conservative but de facto nothing. I looked at what the Conservative movement offered & was thoroughly underwhelmed & unimpressed. Orthodox Judaism is all-encompassing and supplies a deep emotional commitment & spiritual food for the soul. Orthodox Judaism believes that the Torah comes from God; the Reform movement does not. The Conservative movement tries to straddle a middle ground that does not exist. If one does not believe that the Torah is from God, then what’s the point? Judaism is not, and never has been, an everyone-for-him/herself religion. Orthodoxy recognizes that there is a certain set of core beliefs that are immutable & which serve to bind all Jews everywhere, much as they have for thousands of years. Take Shabbat (i.e. the Sabbath, see jewfaq.org/shabbat.htm), most of the observance of which the Reform movement has junked altogether (I guess they ignore Isaiah 56:1-2 and 56:6-7) & which the Conservative movement has made “optional.” An early Zionist writer wrote, about this binding set of core beliefs & norms which I’ve just mentioned, “More than the Jews have kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept the Jews.” When this communal/social glue is thrown aside, the chaos that you described is indeed the result.

Ghosty, as usual, you’re correct. There is a photocopy of a page of Talmud at ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/TalmudPage.html#Page.

Be well!

ssv