Torah vs Old Testament

[donanobis]

Jesus read from the Torah in the Temple. Did the readings he used differ or were they the same as our Old Testament reading?

Also how does the Talmud differ from the Torah?

thanks,
Dona

 

[7_Sorrows]

i think the Talmud is more like a commentary on the Torah. i am not Jewish so i might be wrong.

the Torah is the first 5 books of the Bible i thought and the Tanakh includes the Torah,
the Prophets and other books.

i have a hebrew bible, but it is packed away right now as i am living with my son and don’t have all my books out. the Jewish people do not like to hear Christians refer to their Hebrew bible as the Old Testament because to them, their covenant with God is still very alive and it is not outdated or invalid.

 

[patrick457]

Jesus read from the Torah in the Temple. Did the readings he used differ or were they the same as our Old Testament reading?

The term Torah, meaning ‘instruction’ or ‘teaching’, properly refers to what we call the Pentateuch - the first five books of the Old Testament, aka the Five Books of Moses. The Torah is, literally, the core of Judaism.

Now, the other books of the Tanakh (i.e. the other 19 books out of 24*) are also in one way important, yes, but it is the Torah that are given a very unique and special status, to the point that Jewish tradition has it that God created the Torah before the whole universe was even made. Louis Ginzberg’s compilation of Jewish midrash, The Legends of the Jews, relates that:

In the beginning, two thousand years before the heaven and the earth, seven things were created: the Torah written with black fire on white fire, and lying in the lap of God; the Divine Throne, erected in the heaven which later was over the heads of the Hayyot; Paradise on the right side of God, Hell on the left side; the Celestial Sanctuary directly in front of God, having a jewel on its altar graven with the Name of the Messiah, and a Voice that cries aloud, “Return, ye children of men.”

When God resolved upon the creation of the world, He took counsel with the Torah. Her advice was this: “O Lord, a king without an army and without courtiers and attendants hardly deserves the name of king, for none is nigh to express the homage due to him.” The answer pleased God exceedingly. Thus did He teach all earthly kings, by His Divine example, to undertake naught without first consulting advisers.

*In modern Judaism, the Scriptures are considered to have 24 books:

1-5. The Torah
NEVI’IM (Prophets)
6. Joshua; 7. Judges; 8. 1 and 2 Samuel; 9. 1 and 2 Kings; 10. Isaiah; 11. Jeremiah; 12. Ezekiel; 13. The Twelve Prophets (from Hoshea to Malachi)
KETUVIM (Writings)
14. Psalms; 15. Proverbs; 16. Job; 17. Song of Songs; 18. Ruth; 19. Lamentations; 20. Ecclesiastes; 21. Esther; 22. Daniel; 23. Ezra-Nehemiah; 24. 1 and 2 Chronicles

There is even an opinion in Judaism that had Israel been faithful, the other books would have been unnecessary - since they mostly detail man’s turning away from the Law, God’s warnings and calling His people back to Himself.

Just a nitpick: Jesus did not read from and expound on the Torah in the Temple of Jerusalem, but on the book of Isaiah, inside a synagogue in Nazareth.

Also how does the Talmud differ from the Torah?

thanks,
Dona

I’ll admit I don’t know much about it, but here goes:

The Talmud is technically some sort of ‘record’ of rabbinic discussions and commentaries pertaining to various topics. It is important for most Jews since it is a written record of an oral tradition and is the basis for many rabbinic legal codes and customs that came afterwards. Orthodox Jewish belief has it that the oral law was revealed to Moses in some form together with the written law (the Torah) - this oral law is further shaped by years of transmission and interpretation. Hence its importance.

The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah, the first written compendium of the Oral Torah/Law of rabbinic Judaism; and the Gemara, a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Hebrew Bible.

A passage from the Talmud usually takes the form of the following: first, the mishnah in question is first given. Here, we’ll take the fourth one from Berakhot (“Blessings”), the first tractate of Seder Zeraim (“Order of Seeds”) of the Mishnah.

Workmen can recite [the *Shema] on top of a tree or on top of a scaffolding, a thing which they are not permitted to do for tefillah (prayer).

The commentary would then follow like this (in part):

Our Rabbis taught, “Workmen may recite on the top of a tree or on the top of a scaffolding, and they may say the tefillah, on the top of an olive tree and the top of a fig tree, but from all other trees they must come down to the ground before saying the tefillah, and the employer must in any case come down before saying the tefillah, the reason in all cases being that their mind is not clear.”

Rabbi Mari the son of the daughter of Samuel pointed out to Rab a contradiction. “We have learnt,” he said, “‘Workmen can recite on top of a tree or on top of a scaffolding’ which would show that the recital does not require kawanah (‘aiming’, ‘concentration’; i.e. devotion). Contrast with this: ‘When one recites the Shema’, it is incumbent that he should direct his heart on it, since it says, ‘Hear, O Israel,’ and in another place it says, ‘Pay attention and hear, O Israel,’ showing that just as in the latter ‘hearing’ must be accompanied by attention, so here it must be accompanied by attention.” He gave no reply.
Then he said to him, “Have you heard any statement on this point?” He replied, “Thus said Rabbi Shesheth: ‘This is the case only if they stop from their work to recite.’ But it has been taught, ‘Beit Hillel say that they may go on with their work while reciting’? — There is no contradiction. The former statement refers to the first section, the latter to the second section [of the Shema’].”

 

[donanobis]

The term Torah, meaning ‘instruction’ or ‘teaching’, properly refers to what we call the Pentateuch - the first five books of the Old Testament, aka the Five Books of Moses. The Torah is, literally, the core of Judaism.

Just a nitpick: Jesus did not read from and expound on the Torah in the Temple of Jerusalem, but on the book of Isaiah, inside a synagogue in Nazareth.

In regards to the “nitpick”: Whenever Jesus quoted scripture and the Prophets, what script(ure) did He use? The Torah? Is the book of Isaiah in the Torah? I assume by your answer it is not. This is a serious question as I am really rather ignorant of these facts.

Also:
Quoting myself, Do you know the answer to this question?

Jesus read from the Torah in the Temple. Did the readings he used differ or were they the same as our Old Testament reading?

Were the scriptures that Jesus quoted from (refer to question above) the same as the Old Testament scripture that we read from?

thanks,
Dona

 

[7_Sorrows]

when jesus quoted from the book of Isaiah - that book is not in the Torah (the first 5 books of the bible that includes genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy).

the scripture from Isaiah would be from the Prophets or the Nevi’im.

Jesus was Jewish and lived a Jewish life based on what he had been taught growing up and what he had learned in the synagogue.

 

[donanobis]

when jesus quoted from the book of Isaiah - that book is not in the Torah (the first 5 books of the bible that includes genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy).

the scripture from Isaiah would be from the Prophets or the Nevi’im.

Jesus was Jewish and lived a Jewish life based on what he had been taught growing up and what he had learned in the synagogue.

As a Catholic, I realize that Jesus was Jewish. What I am asking is - In the Synagogue, where Jesus studied, was he reading from what *we now call * the Old Testament?

I wish to understand if the Old Testament we study (now) is what Jesus used when he quoted scripture during his lifetime? We read in the New Testament the words he quoted. He said he came to fulfill the scriptures. He was always quoting scripture. Were the words of the Old Testament we study (now) what Jesus used when he quoted scripture during his lifetime?

or

Did the readings he used differ or were they the same as our Old Testament reading?

please clarify,
Dona

 

[Solo1959]

As a Catholic, I realize that Jesus was Jewish. What I am asking is - In the Synagogue, where Jesus studied, was he reading from what *we now call * the Old Testament?

I wish to understand if the Old Testament we study (now) is what Jesus used when he quoted scripture during his lifetime?..please clarify,
Dona

I’d like to second your question. I understand your question to be, Is the Old Testament that we have today the same as the Scriptures in use during the time of Jesus? Are our books the same as the ones He would have read and quoted from? If not, what extra ones do we have? Which might we be missing that He would have been familiar with?

I have wondered this myself for some time now. Thank you for answering. I, too, would very much like to learn this.

 

[donanobis]

I’d like to second your question. I understand your question to be, Is the Old Testament that we have today the same as the Scriptures in use during the time of Jesus? Are our books the same as the ones He would have read and quoted from? …I have wondered this myself for some time now… I, too, would very much like to learn this.

I was beginning to think I was the only one who questioned this. From the lack of response, I think perhaps it may need to be researched a bit. There are so many bible scholars on site that it may just be a matter of time.

patient and prudent,
Dona

 

[7_Sorrows]

well, during the days of Jesus, the Christian religion did not exist. the Bible was not put together until after Jesus died.
i believe that there were Hebrew scriptures written down, but i don’t know when they were formed into the Tanakh. there was no Old Testament in the days of Jesus as we know it today.
that is about all i can say on the subject.
i would suggest that you do some research online and i am sure that you can find the answer somewhere.

 

[patrick457]

I’d like to second your question. I understand your question to be, Is the Old Testament that we have today the same as the Scriptures in use during the time of Jesus? Are our books the same as the ones He would have read and quoted from? If not, what extra ones do we have? Which might we be missing that He would have been familiar with?

I have wondered this myself for some time now. Thank you for answering. I, too, would very much like to learn this.

This is a rather tricky question. First of all, we must realize that during the time of Jesus, Judaism was not a single, homogeneous entity - something that has become quite increasingly clear after recent discoveries and reevaluations. There was a huge diversity; there were various groups, sub-groups and movements who, while sharing a good number of the basics, differ in various ways in many specifics - sometimes to the point of bitterly opposing the other sides. It was thus suggested that in a 1st century context, instead of speaking about ‘Judaism’, we should talk about the ‘Judaisms’ or the ‘multiform Judaism’ of Roman-period Judea. In fact, Christianity itself had its origins as one of these ‘Judaisms’ which gradually became separate!

This diversity sometimes influenced the choice of Scripture. While all of these Judaisms accepted the core of the faith that is the Torah, what went in after that was a matter of debate. Some considered the Torah only as Scripture (such as the Sadducees and the Samaritans), giving their exclusive and total focus into, while others were more open to taking other books into consideration. Note that there was little to no idea of a fixed and definite canon of Scripture at the time of Jesus as we do now; it was an idea that would later only fully develop among Christians and Jews alike.

There is also some diversity on what non-Torah books were used by groups who made use of them; say, one group used this book while the other did not, while that book may be used by both. Isaiah is one such example of a universally renowned book while Esther and Ecclesiastes are two specimens of the first example.

 

[donanobis]

that is about all i can say on the subject.i would suggest that you do some research online and i am sure that you can find the answer somewhere.

7sorrows: thank you for your thoughts. This complex question is like looking for a proverbial needle in a proverbial haystack? However, I doubt it will stump the many bible scholars who frequent CAF. I look forward to their contributions.

 

[7_Sorrows]

7sorrows: thank you for your thoughts. This complex question is like looking for a proverbial needle in a proverbial haystack? However, I doubt it will stump the many bible scholars who frequent CAF. I look forward to their contributions.

have you thought of asking your priest?

 

[donanobis]

This is a rather tricky question. First of all, we must realize that during the time of Jesus, Judaism was not a single, homogeneous entity - something that has become quite increasingly clear after recent discoveries and reevaluations. There was a huge diversity; there were various groups, sub-groups and movements who, while sharing a good number of the basics, differ in various ways in many specifics - sometimes to the point of bitterly opposing the other sides. It was thus suggested that in a 1st century context, instead of speaking about ‘Judaism’, we should talk about the ‘Judaisms’ or the ‘multiform Judaism’ of Roman-period Judea. In fact, Christianity itself had its origins as one of these ‘Judaisms’ which gradually became separate!

Do we know the name of the ‘Judaisms’ of which you speak which became separate? and is there somewhere online I can look for more information?

This diversity sometimes influenced the choice of Scripture. While all of these Judaisms accepted the core of the faith that is the Torah, what went in after that was a matter of debate. Some considered the Torah only as Scripture (such as the Sadducees and the Samaritans), giving their exclusive and total focus into, while others were more open to taking other books into consideration. Note that there was little to no idea of a fixed and definite canon of Scripture at the time of Jesus as we do now; it was an idea that would later only fully develop among Christians and Jews alike.

Do you/we (in general) know, or have any way of knowing, what or which books Jesus was quoting/used in the temple, or when He studied?

There is also some diversity on what non-Torah books were used by groups who made use of them; say, one group used this book while the other did not, while that book may be used by both. Isaiah is one such example of a universally renowned book while Esther and Ecclesiastes are two specimens of the first example.

I’m trying to stay focused but it’s hard as it seems there is so much more? to consider in order to grasp the basics of the OP (without needing to go back to get a PhD in ?)

OP

Did the readings he used differ or were they the same as our Old Testament reading , the readings that make up our OT?

 

[Crumpy]

Torah does refer to the first five books of the bible. But, because Torah means “teaching” or “instruction” it can have wider meaning.

As someone already pointed out, Tanakh refers to all the Jewish writings which are considered inspired. The Jews drew a line in the sand, so to speak, around the year which we now refer to as 400 B.C. So, the books of Maccabees were written after that, so are not considered inspired, although the Catholic Church takes them to be inspired.

Talmud means “study” and Talmud is short for Talmud Torah, or the study of scriptures. It is a collection of writings that start about 200 BC and ends about 400 or 600 AD, in the Christian time scale.

There’s a rather interesting introduction to the history and belief of Judaism which I would like to recommend: The World of the Talmud, Morris Adler I found it at my local library and it is still in print and can be purchased online. It is worth reading.

The midrash(im) are writings about the Torah that were composed by synagogue rabbis, as opposed to the Talmud which more written by more academic type rabbis, if I understand this correctly. The Zohar comprise the mystical writings of Judaism and these include things that are not so mainline ideas, like a belief in reincarnation.

Jews consider that studying the Torah is their real life’s work. They just have jobs to feed the wife and kids and to pay the bills.

There are today secular and non-religious Jews, who have little or no faith in the ancient scriptures.

The Talmud includes different points of view, sometimes conflicting. It’s all there for Jews to study and to meditate on. Part of the motivation of the Talmud is to resolve contradictions or conflicts between God’s commands in the Torah.

Everyone’s study of Judaism may take different paths. I ran across Rabbi David Wolpe’s website where he talks about Jewish fundamentalism. He concludes that the Torah was not written clearly enough to allow anyone to adopt pure Jewish fundamentalism. One example of this is something that is prohibited on the Sabbath: melakah. The problem is, nobody today knows what the word means, so that it’s literally impossible to obey this command of God. They are confident up to a point that it means “hard work” so work is forbidden on the Sabbath, but it’s just a guess.

If you have an interest, you might take a look at the late Jaroslav Pelakin’s book, Whose Bible (or Book) is it? He discusses how Jews, Muslims, and Christians all have different takes on the oldest writings, which they claim as their own.

He does a good job of pointing out how the old testament was written in Hebrew, which has no vowels, footnotes, punctuation, indentation, or such modern features of written language. So, we can glibly pick up our Bibles and say “there it is” but it is even today, just somebody’s interpretation of what the old Hebrew says. There was, from the beginning, a tradition of what the Bible said, to begin with. Put in different vowels and you have different words. So, tradition was very important and still is, notwithstanding those who sneer at the “traditions of men.”

 

[7_Sorrows]

Torah does refer to the first five books of the bible. But, because Torah means “teaching” or “instruction” it can have wider meaning.

As someone already pointed out, Tanakh refers to all the Jewish writings which are considered inspired. The Jews drew a line in the sand, so to speak, around the year which we now refer to as 400 B.C. So, the books of Maccabees were written after that, so are not considered inspired, although the Catholic Church takes them to be inspired.

Talmud means “study” and Talmud is short for Talmud Torah, or the study of scriptures. It is a collection of writings that start about 200 BC and ends about 400 or 600 AD, in the Christian time scale.

There’s a rather interesting introduction to the history and belief of Judaism which I would like to recommend: The World of the Talmud, Morris Adler I found it at my local library and it is still in print and can be purchased online. It is worth reading.

The midrash(im) are writings about the Torah that were composed by synagogue rabbis, as opposed to the Talmud which more written by more academic type rabbis, if I understand this correctly. The Zohar comprise the mystical writings of Judaism and these include things that are not so mainline ideas, like a belief in reincarnation.

Jews consider that studying the Torah is their real life’s work. They just have jobs to feed the wife and kids and to pay the bills.

There are today secular and non-religious Jews, who have little or no faith in the ancient scriptures.

The Talmud includes different points of view, sometimes conflicting. It’s all there for Jews to study and to meditate on. Part of the motivation of the Talmud is to resolve contradictions or conflicts between God’s commands in the Torah.

Everyone’s study of Judaism may take different paths. I ran across Rabbi David Wolpe’s website where he talks about Jewish fundamentalism. He concludes that the Torah was not written clearly enough to allow anyone to adopt pure Jewish fundamentalism. One example of this is something that is prohibited on the Sabbath: melakah. The problem is, nobody today knows what the word means, so that it’s literally impossible to obey this command of God. They are confident up to a point that it means “hard work” so work is forbidden on the Sabbath, but it’s just a guess.

If you have an interest, you might take a look at the late Jaroslav Pelakin’s book, Whose Bible (or Book) is it? He discusses how Jews, Muslims, and Christians all have different takes on the oldest writings, which they claim as their own.

He does a good job of pointing out how the old testament was written in Hebrew, which has no vowels, footnotes, punctuation, indentation, or such modern features of written language. So, we can glibly pick up our Bibles and say “there it is” but it is even today, just somebody’s interpretation of what the old Hebrew says. There was, from the beginning, a tradition of what the Bible said, to begin with. Put in different vowels and you have different words. So, tradition was very important and still is, notwithstanding those who sneer at the “traditions of men.”

in regards to the last paragraph, i believe the Torah scrolls that are read in the synagogues today have no vowels, footnotes, punctuation, indentation, etc.
when studying for the bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah, the young boys and girls have to learn how to read a portion of the torah as part of the ceremony. during the shabbat services, people come up and read from the torah just as we have people come up and do a first and second reading in the catholic church. some people’s knowledge of Torah and hebrew is better than others. i guess it would be like someone having to go up and read the first and second readings in latin. at least latin, though, is written in an alphabet that we use daily.

 

[Ignatius]

Jesus read from the Torah in the Temple. Did the readings he used differ or were they the same as our Old Testament reading?

Also how does the Talmud differ from the Torah?

thanks,
Dona

There is no ‘vs’ or versus, The Torah is the Pentateuch which is part of the Torah.
The Talmud is a central text of mainstream Judaism, in the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law and ethics.
The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. A.D. 200 A.D.), the first written compendium of Judaism’s Oral Law; and the Gemara from around A.D. 500.

As far as what Jesus was reading, if it was outside of Jerusalem, it is likely that He would have used the Septuagent translation, which is the basis of our Old Testament.

 

[Solo1959]

Jesus read from the Torah in the Temple. Did the readings he used differ or were they the same as our Old Testament reading?

Also how does the Talmud differ from the Torah?

thanks,
Dona

I was just reading the Preface to my Bible. This version I am using is the Good News Bible with Deuterocononicals/Apocrypha, it looks like Copyright 1992.

It says: " …These books formed part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was in circulation at the time of Christ…"

Just going solely on the basis of that statement, I imagine it would be safe to say that the Septuagint was in use during the time of Christ. Wikipedia lists the books of the Septuagint.

Septuagint is a cool search engine term that I intend to spend at least the next couple of days checking out.

 

[patrick457]

Do we know the name of the ‘Judaisms’ of which you speak which became separate? and is there somewhere online I can look for more information?

Whoa, I’m just intimidated there.
Now, for the ‘Judaisms’: you’re actually familiar with them, though not easily recognizable at first. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, Hellenistic Jews, the Therapeutae, and first-generation Christianity are all, in one sense, some of the ‘Judaisms’ of the period.
And here’s one good introduction to the idea.

There! That’s short enough.

Do you/we (in general) know, or have any way of knowing, what or which books Jesus was quoting/used in the temple, or when He studied

Unless we can ask Jesus Himself, no. At best, we can just guess.
But since the Pentateuch/Torah is a mainstay, I guess that there is a huge possibility that He used them - and indeed, He quotes them quite a number of times.
And since Jesus used many other books, or at least those which were widely known and accepted: say Isaiah or the Psalms, we can infer that He was not a ‘sola Torah’-ist.

In the Gospels, Jesus is recorded as quoting from or alluding to (as far as I can glean) the Torah, from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, and the Psalms. So from these we can at least imagine that Jesus was familiar with most or all of these texts, and probably a few more.

Now, I’m very sorry. I’ll admit I’m not a very good explainer; everything I explain inevitably ends up becoming as confusing as an algebra book or as longwinded as Marienbad My Love. Sorry I’m not been of much help here.

Going on…

 

[Fan_of_M_Ricci]

I’d like to second your question. I understand your question to be, Is the Old Testament that we have today the same as the Scriptures in use during the time of Jesus? Are our books the same as the ones He would have read and quoted from? If not, what extra ones do we have? Which might we be missing that He would have been familiar with?

Well, as someone one in this thread mentioned before, there were several sects of Judaism at the time. The Pharisees (a scholarly group whom many “mainstream” Jews at the time followed or identified with) would probably had the most comprehensive outlook on scripture; they would have studied and preached from the Torah, the Nevi’im (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings, e.g. Psalms, Proverbs, maybe Sirach).
The Saduccees were a sect that only accepted the Torah as authoritative; therefore they didn’t take the other OT books seriously. In the Matthew 22, the Gospel explains that since the Torah doesn’t mention an afterlife or the resurrection, the Saduccees didn’t believe in it either. But Jesus is able to quote the Torah to prove that the resurrection is there.
The Essenes were an apocalyptic sect. They seemed to accept all of Hebrew Scripture, but focused on the Prophets and the coming of the Messiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls were actually written and studied by the Essenes. Now, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of books of the OT, some of the scriptures are not in the Bible (in fact, no one knew they existed until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found). Whether the Essenes believed these were divinely inspired or just used them for reference, no one knows.

Now, since the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest Hebrew texts of some OT books, they might be pretty close to the Scriptures Jesus read. Research has shown that there a couple of differences between the DSS and the Masoretic texts (the Hebrew Old Testament used by Jews, and the basis for many Christian versions of the OT). These differences, from what I’ve heard, actually make the Dead Sea texts more similar in wording to the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT from the 2nd century B.C.). This is interesting, since the Septuagint was often used in the Gospel when referencing the OT (e.g. Mt 1:22-23), and was used by Christians as their basis for the Old Testament. St. Jerome used the Septuagint to create the Latin OT.

Now, as to whether certain books were considered canonical by Jews in Jesus’ time is unclear. It’s probably reasonable to say that books accepted today by Jews were also accepted in Jesus’ time, except of course by Saduccees, who only accepted the Torah. Deuterocanonical books (accepted by Catholics and Orthodox, but not in Protestant or Jewish scriptures) are, frankly, up in the air. Books like Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch were in the Septuagint, and thus probably accepted as canonical at the time they were written (about 200 years before Christ). They might have been accepted as Inspired Scripture in Jesus’ time, or they might have been just good texts of Jewish wisdom. A few decades after Jesus’ Resurrection, there is believed to have been a Jewish council (known as the Council of Jamnia) that outlined what texts were canonical for the Jewish Scriptures, excluding some books that are still accepted in Catholic and Orthodox canon.

 

[Mr_Flapatap]

I’d like to second your question. I understand your question to be, Is the Old Testament that we have today the same as the Scriptures in use during the time of Jesus? Are our books the same as the ones He would have read and quoted from? If not, what extra ones do we have? Which might we be missing that He would have been familiar with?

I have wondered this myself for some time now. Thank you for answering. I, too, would very much like to learn this.

Many scholars believe that He used the Septuagint.