Why do Christians reject the Talmud?

[Rabbi]

in Hebrew there are a lot of prefixes of that kind, but this isn’t one of them. The verb makar, meaning “to sell” (with the imperative mikrah, the form that appears here in the Jacob and Esau episode), is unrelated to the verb karah, meaning “to dig”.

Certainly distinct but those that push the two-letter roots and edenics (Biblical Hebrew Etymology נפלאות שפת הקודש) will likely have ways to show how they are connected.

 

[Rabbi]

Basically they don’t go all the way but they get from

dig->(karet)->cut (koret)
dig->pasture (kar)->plain (kikar)->boundary wall->identity terms (hikir, nochri [nochri may also come from cut off]).
Also dig->pasture->farmer (akar)

I would guess some would also connect makar through the pasture route (land as the paradigmatic transaction medium) but perhaps it could also come from the boundary/identity side of acquisition.

 

[BartholomewB]

Do you believe in “edenics,” @Rabbi?

 

[Rabbi]

It’s not really my field, but try this:

User TKR

Q&A for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory

linguistics.stackexchange.com

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you for that link. There are some interesting insights there.

In the wake of yet another mining disaster in Brazil, I’m reminded of a theory, dating back a few years, that “Brazil” may be a Semitic name in origin, given by the Phenicians who (supposedly) crossed the Atlantic at its narrowest point and imported iron ore from South America. Thinking they had landed on an island rather than a vast continent – so the conjecture goes – they called it אי ברזל (I Barzel or I Brazil), meaning Iron Island.

 

[Rabbi]

I don’t know about this at all, sounds like one of those crack-pot theories, haha! Who can say for sure? The Vikings visited America way before Columbus, and the Chinese tried, but their 300 strong fleet was wiped out by a hurricane and they didn’t think it worthwhile to spend their resources on trying the odds again.

 

[curious_cath]

Now, as you’ll recall, this theory was first purposed by, oh - not by Ibn Ezra, give me a break - but by Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677 CE). Later, it received growing pains and the theory was redeveloped a few times by some other guys, the most famous being Dr. Julius Wellhausen

I appreciate your historical overview. My main concern is how to establish a unity of authorship across a diversity of themes and literary styles in the prophesies of Isaiah. I don’t see any argument supporting the one author theory. We Catholics take the Bible as the Word of God (Dei Verbum) but we understand inerrancy of the Scripture somewhat differently from the literal, word-by-word view.

So back to Isaiah, he lived about 2,750 years ago, and he preached for about some 80 years and wrote his book before he was prematurely killed by his grandson

We learned that he was sawn in one half by the order of the king.

Now. Modern scholars believe that Isaiah was written by 2-3 authors, in fact, everything from Ch. 1-39 was written by the “real” Isaiah, and then the second author picked up from Ch. 40-56, and perhaps he also lived during the Babylonian empire; and then Isaiah #3 wrote Chapters 57-66, and none of these people know about the Talmud.

Scholars talk about internal evidence. For that they don’t need a lately written interpretative book to understand.

the original Isaiah DID write about the fall of Babylon! Where, you ask? 13:19, “And Babylon, the beauty of the kingdoms, the glory of the pride of the Chaldees, shall be like G-d’s overturning of Sodom and Gemorrah.”

Checkmate.

Not really. There could be any number of reason these prophesies were included there. You talked about a committee of rabbis editing Isaiah after his death. You yourself mentioned additional possible authors who contributed to the text.

Actually, the prophesy did not come true. Babylon did not become as Sodom and Gomorrah, but it was spared after the Persian takeover. Many Jews chose to stay in Babylon because they preferred its vibrant multiculturalism over the dubious return to a bled-out Jerusalem. That is how you got the Babylonian Talmud written by rabbis of the descendants of Jews who remained in Babylon.

 

[curious_cath]

And it’s the exact same thing with Daniel.

I did not mention the prophet Daniel. I guess his story is completely unrelated.

I’d like to point out that we have something called… the Dead Sea Scrolls. Have you heard of them?

Of course, I love the findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Orthodox Jews, we have only one authority and that’s the Hebrew Bible alone and that’s why we’ll never fall for such hogwash.

Well, could this be labeled as textual worship?

Prophecy in neiv’im is not dogmatically bounded by chumash’s rules, and neither are we when reading it, but please have some iqqarei ha’emunah! You don’t have to go frum, just stop adopting such strange mishegas!

I am sorry, I admit I lost your line of reasoning here…

Again, biblical criticism has shown itself to be the fool, too bad none of these guys took yeshiva!

I believe, the issue you have here is not of the method but of the conclusions. What I cannot fathom is that what are the benefits of the one-Isaiah theory over the others?

 

[AlNg]

I also read of a theory of ancient migration of Jews from Palestine to Central and South America. But I am not sure how they were supposed to get there.

 

[Rabbi]

That’s Mormonism, it’s not true. Total bogus. Ask one of them to show you real evidence for Jewish genes in Indian DNA. They smile and walk away, yet preach it as if your soul depended on it.

 

[Rabbi]

Remember, Isaiah, as well as many authors (just take Psalm 22, what we were just discussing!) are ripe for shifts in style, language, etc. As that one article of yours shows, it makes no difference whether Isaiah first talked about doom, and then peace in the coming age. I’ve shown this myself in my own work, going verse by verse sometimes. Yes, he was killed. We agree on that. Which scholars are you talking about? You need to understand this: the Talmud, at least that portion of halacha – it isn’t “new.” That’s incorrect. Moses was given the halacha by G-d, and what’s found in the aggadah comes from the Bible itself, those works were divorced from it later by the rabbis, but in the Dead Sea Scrolls, you see them all tucked together. Um… I wonder why? Perhaps the rabbis were right after all? If that’s the case, then we can rely on them. As Jews, even scholarly Jews, we’re going to rely on the Talmud’s authority too. So if it says something about Isaiah, don’t just wash it down as if it means nothing. That’s just poor scholarship. Our Mishnah has been around since Moses was given the Torah, in oral form of course. You cannot divorce to two or you no longer have Judaism, you don’t have anything.

As far as the committee of rabbis, again, they’re not like your Bible critic. They just assembled the work together, maybe added a line there or two. It doesn’t matter. If you believe Isaiah did not know about Cyrus a hundred years later, then why do you even bother with him knowing about Jesus in Ch. 53? It makes no sense (now I personally don’t believe that’s who he was talking about, but you get my point).

What you’re doing is wrong. You’re erasing the Bible’s authority. Also, you need to understand this: in Judaism, not every prophecy there ever was has to come true. All the good ones will happen, but the bad ones… if they can be avoided, ya, we’ll take that. That explain why Babylon wasn’t made like Sodom, else, it could have been metaphorical, or as if its leaders were eradicated, per se like the city of Sodom.

I know all about the Jews who stayed there and constructed the Gemara, etc. They later moved to Baghdad. Babylon was a special place for the early scholars, they became more revered there than in the Holy Land.

The reason I pointed out Daniel is to shove your crazy theory where it belongs! To show you that its just all bogus. Is the Torah textual worship? Hold it! No. We worship G-d alone. Don’t think for a moment that your New Testament is free of these errors, if my Bible is messed up, so is your’s! One relies on the other, haha!

You wrote: “I am sorry, I admit I lost your line of reasoning here…”

My reasoning there was that you don’t have to go crazy over this stupid theory. As stated earlier, the befits on one author, or max, one author, is that the Bible is authentic. If you have many authors, then Isaiah lied about who he was. You too jump to conclusions, who doesn’t?

 

[Here-I-am-Lord]

Compassion is built in our DNA

I like what you say about compassion. But is it a universal concept as taught in the Talmud? In Buddhism, we owe compassion to every living creature, including birds and trees. In Judaism, compassion is somewhat reduced to the elect. In Christianity, compassion is for every human being, as we are all eligible for salvation in Christ.

 

[Rabbi]

Judaism teaches the exact same as Christianity and Buddhism regarding compassion. Where are getting this idea that we don’t?

 

[Here-I-am-Lord]

Let’s read about the fall of Jericho and the massacre of “every living thing” in Joshua 6:

20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

Or the execution of the civil population of Ai in Joshua 8:

24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai.

We see no particular reason for this inhuman level of horror, terror and brutality. It sounds mythical, so probably not true in the literal sense. But the glorification of sheer violence and vain killing is nevertheless breath taking.

 

[thistle]

He did not become a Buddhists. So there is no reincarnation in Christianity. But He may have experienced the importance of the basic tenets of love, peace, no violence and compassion. The last two are alien to Judaism.

There is ZERO evidence that Jesus travelled to other lands never mind having met Buddhists.

 

[Rabbi]

Some thoughts. If this Bible is wicked, why do you follow it? Who do you follow Jesus, who followed it? Those people were our enemies, and you’ve taken those passages out of context. First off, this action was a one time thing in our history, so it’ll never happen again (so much for us being a war time people). Secondly, G-d commanded it, if that means anything to you. And thirdly, these people were evil, they had to go. They did stuff like child sacrifice, unless you don’t consider that to be evil.

Note now that Joshua gave these people theee choices:

1. They could convert to Judaism and stay in the land
2. Peacefully leave the area
3. Or fight for their evil ways.

Now you now more behind the reasons why it had to happen, because only two peoples left the area and the people of Jericho refused peace.

Nonetheless, our Tanakh and Talmud, in a general sense, does not teach violence. The book of Leviticus teaches us to be kind to the stranger for we were once strangers in Egypt.

 

[Here-I-am-Lord]

Who do you follow Jesus, who followed it?

Jesus did follow some teachings of the Old Testament that He thought was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But He rejected that teachings that proclaim terror and incite violence. His understanding was that some parts of the old Hebrew writings were included because of the stubbornness of the Jewish people. ““It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied” for a question (Mark 10:5).

Jesus flat out rejected and overrode some other parts and tenets of the Old Testament. In Matthew 5:21-48 He systematically replaces the Jewish approach in connection to:

• murder (anger is condemned)
• adultery (lust is condemned)
• divorce (no divorce is allowed except due to sexual immorality)
• oath (swearing in oath is banned)
• revenge (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is condemned)
• hatred (replaced by love of the enemy)

Jesus simply separated the “sheep” from the “goat” in the writings, those parts which are acceptable from those which are not. So He by no means can be claimed to be a worshiper of Hebrew literature. The same manner, Christians reject the principle of free killing as set up in the massacres of the civil population at Jericho and Ai. Murder is murder even if you erroneously claim it was ordered by God. God does not order murder. He said: “You shall not kill!” It is because compassion is a universal principle that cannot be denied based on racial or religious reason.

 

[Michael16]

I have to admit; this whole thread is immensely interesting, especially the Reform vs Orthodox conflict. If I may, I venture to say that to be a Jew, is to accept and follow the whole of Torah. In my study of Judaism, even though my knowledge is limited and I AM an outsider; I’ve come to the conclusion that the Orthodox position is the correct form of Judaism.

From what I’ve seen, Reform Judaism came into being during the period of the Western European “ Enlightenment “ and the Reform Jews sought integration with Gentile society.

With that being said: Why not keep to Jewish Halacha and traditions? If you’re a Jew, be a Jew and be proud of it. Keep your separate identity and wholeheartedly practice your faith.

I’m the same way with my Catholic faith.

 

[Michael16]

Actually, Rabbi is right. Compassion for the stranger is in the Torah. Many times, the phrase: The stranger among you is mentioned many times.

As for Rabbi’s statement about Joshua giving the Canaanites three choices: I’ve read the first 12 chapters of Joshua and I don’t recall him giving them any choices. God decreed the destruction of the Canaanites for their sins.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

Jesus did follow some teachings of the Old Testament that He thought was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But He rejected that teachings that proclaim terror and incite violence. His understanding was that some parts of the old Hebrew writings were included because of the stubbornness of the Jewish people. ““It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied” for a question (Mark 10:5).

Jesus flat out rejected and overrode some other parts and tenets of the Old Testament. In Matthew 5:21-48 He systematically replaces the Jewish approach in connection to:

• murder (anger is condemned)
• adultery (lust is condemned)
• divorce (no divorce is allowed except due to sexual immorality)
• oath (swearing in oath is banned)
• revenge (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth” is condemned)
• hatred (replaced by love of the enemy)

Jesus simply separated the “sheep” from the “goat” in the writings, those parts which are acceptable from those which are not. So He by no means can be claimed to be a worshiper of Hebrew literature. The same manner, Christians reject the principle of free killing as set up in the massacres of the civil population at Jericho and Ai. Murder is murder even if you erroneously claim it was ordered by God. God does not order murder. He said: “You shall not kill!” It is because compassion is a universal principle that cannot be denied based on racial or religious reason.

I think you need to do a little more studying. Jesus was through-and-through Jewish. Jesus is inseparable from Judaism.

Speaking to those items he “systematically replaced”, that’s innacurate. Most of those items you mention, Jesus made more strict, which in Judaism is called “putting a fence” around the Law. This concept is similar to us Catholics “avoiding near occasion of sin”.

Your assertions on “revenge” and “hatred” are grossly misplaced. While Jesus did speak to those things, to assert that it contradicts or replaces Jewish teaching is simply wrong. The way you present it, would lead one to think hatred and revenge are part of Judaism, but that is wrong. This needs to be squashed now, lest it devolves into any more anti-simitic libel. The facts, which I think was Rabbi’s original point, are that Jewish Oral Law provides for the interpretation of these OT passages. For example, “eye for an eye” is not literally interpreted as blinding the other person, but rather receiving compensation of equal value or another just punishment (fine, prison, etc). This is the same way courts work in most modern countries today.

What you’re doing is the same as an atheist saying Christians lack compassion for those same reasons. As Christians, we point to the New Testament and Church teaching to clarify how we interpret the OT and what it means for us in the light of Christ. For Jews, they point to Oral Law, Mishnah, Talmud, and rabbinal tradition to clarify and shed light on what it means for them. Perhaps you should read some of those before you make more assertions like this.