Why did the talmud never get into christianity?

[Sublime_Prince]

In the book of Matthew when Jesus confronts the pharisees he says that we should follow the teachings of the pharisees, but not to do what they do because they do not do what they teach.

The pharisees at the time taught the Talmud right? So why did that never get into christianity then?

Why do Jews and chrsitians differ about the talmud? Jews claim moses recieved an oral law as well as the commandments, christians on the other hand say it was just the ten commandments.

I am really confused.

 

[HashemEchad]

In the book of Matthew when Jesus confronts the pharisees he says that we should follow the teachings of the pharisees, but not to do what they do because they do not do what they teach.

The pharisees at the time taught the Talmud right? So why did that never get into christianity then?

Why do Jews and chrsitians differ about the talmud? Jews claim moses recieved an oral law as well as the commandments, christians on the other hand say it was just the ten commandments.

I am really confused.

What you ask is a very interesting question. I’ve asked myself the same question many times.

It is rather odd, isn’t it? Jesus is reported as saying, in Mt 23:2ff (to his Jewish followers, not Gentile ones), “The scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses; therefore, all that they teach, see that you observe and do it…” He then goes on to condemn them as hypocrites for not always doing as they teach.

What I always found amazing about that passage is that Jesus reportedly is telling his Jewish followers to follow the Oral Law, the Talmud! And he even states that the scribes and Pharisees (the forerunners of today’s Orthodox Judaism) “sit in the seat of Moses” (which means, they have authority from Moses, and Jesus recognized this.)

 

[elvisman]

What you ask is a very interesting question. I’ve asked myself the same question many times.

It is rather odd, isn’t it? Jesus is reported as saying, in Mt 23:2ff (to his Jewish followers, not Gentile ones), “The scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses; therefore, all that they teach, see that you observe and do it…” He then goes on to condemn them as hypocrites for not always doing as they teach.

What I always found amazing about that passage is that Jesus reportedly is telling his Jewish followers to follow the Oral Law, the Talmud! And he even states that the scribes and Pharisees (the forerunners of today’s Orthodox Judaism) “sit in the seat of Moses” (which means, they have authority from Moses, and Jesus recognized this.)

Why do you find that odd?
Jesus was condemning the actions of the Jewish leaders - not what they were teaching.
He condemned their hypocrisy - not their their adherence to the Oral Law.

 

[LutheranDK]

In the book of Matthew when Jesus confronts the pharisees he says that we should follow the teachings of the pharisees, but not to do what they do because they do not do what they teach.

The pharisees at the time taught the Talmud right? So why did that never get into christianity then?

Why do Jews and chrsitians differ about the talmud? Jews claim moses recieved an oral law as well as the commandments, christians on the other hand say it was just the ten commandments.

I am really confused.

1: The Talmud did not exist at the time of the pharisees that Jesus spoke of, no. The Babylonian Talmud was not compiled until 500 AD.
Sure, some of its contents go back to the time of Jesus (oral tradition is MUCH stronger and more reliable in a Middle Eastern context than here in the West), but it’s impossible to tell which.

2: The Talmud is based on rabbinical Judaism, which teaches that salvation is earned through observance of the Law.
Therefore, the directions and instructions in the Talmud seem to be what non-rabbinical Jews and us Gentiles would describe as “too focused on unimportant details”; for instance when the Shma Israel can be recited at night, etc.
From a rabbinical Jewish viewpoint, though, this is not unimportant at all. I think the term used is “fence in the Torah” = put a fence around it, id est: If you keep THESE laws, which are much more strict than the written Law, then you are sure not to break the written law.
But for this very reason (the basic assumption that salvation has to be earned through meticulous observance of the Law), the Talmud has no place in Christianity.

3: From what I know of rabbinical Judaism, no one claims that the Oral Law came directly from God to Moses aside from the written law. This is also why the Sadducees recognized all of the OT, but not the oral law as authoritative.
The claim is that the oral law has its authority from “the fathers”, that compiled them throughout the centuries, to “fence in the Torah”.

But I am much, much less certain of #3 than #1 and #2, so if someone who knows more than I do find a mistake - feel free to inform me

 

[HashemEchad]

While it is true that the volumes we now call “the Talmud” did not exist in the time of the 2nd Temple period, the TEACHINGS of it did exist, and this is why it was always called “the ORAL Law.” Like the teachings of Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah), they were ORALLY transmitted for centuries until finally being committed to writing.

What I find curious is that Jesus quite directly told his Jewish followers that they should OBEY THE PHARISEES, and do whatever they TEACH. He also said the Pharisees have AUTHORITY FROM MOSES.

Yet Christianity largely rejected the teachings of its Jewish origin, and the so-called “messianic jews” for the most part do not keep either the Written or Oral Torah.

BTW Orthodox Judaism does teach that the Oral Torah also is given by God, though I believe that applies to the Mishnah primarily (the Mishnah is a commentary on the Written Torah, and the Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah.)

I have not studied Gemara however, since I am female and females usually do not study it (so please don’t ask me what’s in it!)

 

[Della]

Jesus was concerned with people following the lawful authority that then existed. He was not endorsing any particular school of rabbinic thought or teaching.

The Law of Love, the Gospel, that Christ gave us envelopes and fulfills the Oral Law and the Written Law that came before it. The Gospel is what He commanded his Apostles to preach to the whole world. Therefore, whatever was good and true of the Oral and Written Law are a part of the Gospel preached, taught, and practiced by the Catholic Church, which Christ founded.

 

[elvisman]

While it is true that the volumes we now call “the Talmud” did not exist in the time of the 2nd Temple period, the TEACHINGS of it did exist, and this is why it was always called “the ORAL Law.” Like the teachings of Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah), they were ORALLY transmitted for centuries until finally being committed to writing.

What I find curious is that Jesus quite directly told his Jewish followers that they should OBEY THE PHARISEES, and do whatever they TEACH. He also said the Pharisees have AUTHORITY FROM MOSES.

Yet Christianity largely rejected the teachings of its Jewish origin, and the so-called “messianic jews” for the most part do not keep either the Written or Oral Torah.

BTW Orthodox Judaism does teach that the Oral Torah also is given by God, though I believe that applies to the Mishnah primarily (the Mishnah is a commentary on the Written Torah, and the Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah.)

I have not studied Gemara however, since I am female and females usually do not study it (so please don’t ask me what’s in it!)

Again:

Why do you find that odd?
Jesus was condemning the actions of the Jewish leaders - not what they were teaching.
He condemned their hypocrisy - not their their adherence to the Oral Law.

Why do you keep dodging my responses to your posts?
You did the same thing last week when I stumped you on another thread.
Just wondering . . .

 

[HashemEchad]

Again:

Why do you keep dodging my responses to your posts?
You did the same thing last week when I stumped you on another thread.
Just wondering . . .

What is it you expect me to say to you? I don’t recall you “stumping” me, truthfully, I don’t read all posts in the threads I subscribe to, because I don’t have the time. Never assume a non-response is a “stumping”; I probably never read it!

 

[Eden]

Consider H.L. Mencken:

“I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other Goyim. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then at its lowest it is on all fours with the Koran, “Science and Health” and the Book of Mormon.”

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mencken.htm

 

[Valke2]

Why do you find that odd?
Jesus was condemning the actions of the Jewish leaders - not what they were teaching.
He condemned their hypocrisy - not their their adherence to the Oral Law.

It is odd in the sense that Jesus told his followers to obey the oral law and Christianity has chosen not to incorporate the Talmud into its religion.

 

[Valke2]

Consider H.L. Mencken:

“I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other Goyim. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then at its lowest it is on all fours with the Koran, “Science and Health” and the Book of Mormon.”

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mencken.htm

That’s an interesting conclusion? Which tractates did you study? And with what Rabbi?

 

[Valke2]

Consider H.L. Mencken:

“I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other Goyim. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then at its lowest it is on all fours with the Koran, “Science and Health” and the Book of Mormon.”

lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mencken.htm

What should I consider about this? I will say that the quote evidences an ignorance of three religions. Not bad for three or four sentences.

 

[Eden]

What should I consider about this? I will say that the quote evidences an ignorance of three religions. Not bad for three or four sentences.

He was anti-Christian, too. Just read the rest of the quotes on the link. He’s an equal opportunity offender and critic and he found the Talmud to be rubbish. Since he was certainly not offended by the heavy doses of anti-Christianity contained within the Talmud, it’s interesting that he found the quality to be low for other reasons.

 

[elvisman]

It is odd in the sense that Jesus told his followers to obey the oral law and Christianity has chosen not to incorporate the Talmud into its religion.

**Perhaps it’s because the Talmud decrees that Jesus is in hell “boiled in hot excrement,” (Gittin 57a in the Soncino edition), and refers to his mother as a harlot ("**She played the harlot with carpenters."). **
**It also claims that "he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray." **

You see - we don’t believe that and that may be one of the reasons that the Talmud isn’t incorporated in Christianity.

Also the fact that the Talmud didn’t exist until after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Sepharad]

Perhaps it’s because the Talmud decrees that Jesus is in hell “boiled in hot excrement,” (Gittin 57a in the Soncino edition), and refers to his mother as a harlot ("**She played the harlot with carpenters.").
It also claims that "he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray."

You see - we don’t believe that and that may be one of the reasons that the Talmud isn’t incorporated in Christianity.

Also the fact that the Talmud didn’t exist until after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Hmm, sounds to me like someone’s been consulting an anti-semitic “version” of the Talmud on one of those white power websites!

Maybe you need to go to an accurate resource for this? This site answers all of your charges as listed above, and explains that those passages were not speaking of Jesus or his mother, but someone else:

talmud.faithweb.com

(By the way, can anyone explain to me why, with all the many Jewish, reputable Talmudic resources and versions on line, everyone here keeps linking to and consulting the sites put out by white supremacists and neo-Nazis?)

And while you are correct that the Talmud as we know it today (in written form) did not exist in the time of Jesus, the teachings of what would later be known as the Talmud did most certainly exist, but it was orally handed down. This is also true of the Kabbalah (Jewish mystical teachings.)

What you said would be akin to claiming the sayings of the early Church Fathers did not exist until they were written down.

 

[Eden]

Hmm, sounds to me like someone’s been consulting an anti-semitic “version” of the Talmud on one of those white power websites!

Maybe you need to go to an accurate resource for this? This site answers all of your charges as listed above, and explains that those passages were not speaking of Jesus or his mother, but someone else:

talmud.faithweb.com

(By the way, can anyone explain to me why, with all the many Jewish, reputable Talmudic resources and versions on line, everyone here keeps linking to and consulting the sites put out by white supremacists and neo-Nazis?)

And while you are correct that the Talmud as we know it today (in written form) did not exist in the time of Jesus, the teachings of what would later be known as the Talmud did most certainly exist, but it was orally handed down. This is also true of the Kabbalah (Jewish mystical teachings.)

What you said would be akin to claiming the sayings of the early Church Fathers did not exist until they were written down.

Well, I clearly remember Valke2 stated that these passages referred to Jesus and His Mother. I’m sure he wasn’t consulting white supremacist websites to come to that conclusion.

Ah, yes, post #5 on this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121534

Valke2:

Continued.,

The Talmud refers to Jesus’ mother as Miriam ("Mary), a woman’s hairdresser who was married but conceived Jesus by another man. Pandira. Jesus is sometimes referred to in the Talmud as “Ben Pandira”, Son of Pandira. (Shabbot 104b). Mary is beliebved to have been of a royal bloodline, but she ‘played the harlot with carpenters’ This suggests that it was Jesus’ biological father that was the carpenter. (B. Sanhedrin 106a)

Time for Court. More later.

 

[Sepharad]

Well, I clearly remember Valke2 stated that these passages referred to Jesus and His Mother. I’m sure he wasn’t consulting white supremacist websites to come to that conclusion.

Ah, yes, post #5 on this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121534

I don’t know where Valke2 got that from, but I don’t think he even claims to be thoroughly knowledgeable of Orthodox Judaism or the Talmud, does he?

The website I linked to gives the most accurate info about who those passages are actually discussing:

talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesus.html (the exact link which discusses this)

The Accusation
Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in “hot excrement.”

The Text
Talmud Gittin 56b-57a

[Onkelos Bar Kalonikus] called up Balaam from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Balaam] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Balaam] replied: (Deut. 23:7) “You shall not seek their peace or welfare all your days.” [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Balaam answered]: In boiling semen.
[Onkelos] called up Yeshu from the dead. [Onkelos] asked: Who is honored in that world? [Yeshu] replied: Israel. [Onkelos asked:] What about joining them? [Yeshu] replied: Seek their good. Do not seek their bad. Whoever touches them is as if he touched the pupil of his eye. [Onkelos] asked: What is your punishment? [Yeshu answered]: In boiling excrement. As the mast said: Whoever mocks the words of the sages in punished in boiling excrement.

Here we see a story of the famous convert Onkelos who, prior to converting, used black magic to bring up famous villains of history and ask them whether their wickedness saved them in the world to come. In both cases (there is a third case of Onkelos calling up Titus as well) the sinner is being terribly punished in the afterlife while Israel is being rewarded. Presumably, this helped convince Onkelos to convert to Judaism.

As we have explained elsewhere, Yeshu is not Jesus of the New Testament. He is most likely a prominent sectarian of the early first century BCE who deviated from rabbinic tradition and created his own religion combining Hellenistic paganism with Judaism. While Yeshu may be the proto-Jesus some scholars point to as inspiring the early Christians, he is definitely not the man who was crucified in Jerusalem in the year 33 CE.

Interestingly, if someone were to claim that Yeshu in the passage above is Jesus, then Balaam cannot also refer to Jesus because both Balaam and Yeshu are in the passage together. In other words, it is self-contradicting to claim that the passages above about Balaam’s mother being a harlot or dying young refer to Jesus and to claim that the passage above about Yeshu being punished also refers to Jesus. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Eden]

I don’t know where Valke2 got that from, but I don’t think he even claims to be thoroughly knowledgeable of Orthodox Judaism or the Talmud, does he?

The website I linked to gives the most accurate info about who those passages are actually discussing:

talmud.faithweb.com

So, now I have one Jewish person who says the offensive passages were intended to be about Jesus and one Jewish person who says they are not.

 

[Eden]

An exchange from the same thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=121534&page=7

Eden:

Mary, a hairdresser? These descriptions in the Talmud are not about Jesus Christ. Here is a website that illustrates the inconsistencies between the men described in the Talmud and the actual Jesus Christ:

angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Valke2:

Yes. You will see a large number of historians saying otherwise. ANd you will see a large number saying that the errors you listed were either intentionally put there in order to mislead chrsitians, and thus avoid persecution. Or that the Rabbis simply made a mistake regarding the timing of the event, not having that great an interest in Jesus to begin with. You can find both views expressed in Jewish sources.

However, if you are going to say that there is no mention of Jesus in the Talmud, you have to ask “why”. No mention would indicate that he had even less of an impact on the Jewish community than a false messiah would. The Talmud is not shy about mentioning things that are or were harmful to Judaism

 

[elvisman]

Hmm, sounds to me like someone’s been consulting an anti-semitic “version” of the Talmud on one of those white power websites!

Maybe you need to go to an accurate resource for this? This site answers all of your charges as listed above, and explains that those passages were not speaking of Jesus or his mother, but someone else:

talmud.faithweb.com

(By the way, can anyone explain to me why, with all the many Jewish, reputable Talmudic resources and versions on line, everyone here keeps linking to and consulting the sites put out by white supremacists and neo-Nazis?)

And while you are correct that the Talmud as we know it today (in written form) did not exist in the time of Jesus, the teachings of what would later be known as the Talmud did most certainly exist, but it was orally handed down. This is also true of the Kabbalah (Jewish mystical teachings.)

What you said would be akin to claiming the sayings of the early Church Fathers did not exist until they were written down.

White supremacists and neo-Nazis?
The Princeton University Press?
Amazon Books?
Barnes and Noble?
Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations at Boston College?
These are some of the sites I gleaned these words from. They are hardly neo-nazi or White supremacist.
From the latter, I quote:
***". . . the talmudic passages about Jesus respond to Christian traditions about him with ******parody, inversion, deliberate distortion, and not least with the proud proclamation that what their ******fellow Jews did to this Jesus was right: that he deserved to be executed because of his ******blasphemy, that he will sit in hell forever, and that those who follow his example up until today ***will not, as he has promised, gain eternal life but will share his horrible fate."

I am not a Nazi or a White Supremacist or an anti-Semite.
I am a Catholic who defends his faith. If these things were written in the Talmud - I don’t hold anybody responsible but the men who wrote them.

Hopefully this and the fact that the Talmud was “post-Jesus” will put to rest the notion that it should have been included in Christian doctrine.