Why do Christians reject the Talmud?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rabbi
  • Start date Start date
I would just add to that that many Mormons and Muslims also died for what they believed; dying is easy, living is much harder, but has great reward.
 
Thank you so much for the kind words. Your thoughts intrigue me. I just want to point out a mistake I made. Fragment 5/6HevPs is younger than the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls, we think, were penned before 66 CE, whereas this fragment, probably around 70 CE.

One thing I would point out. When we look at Psalm 22 in context, its obvious about David’s anguish and torment, and his call to G-d, right? If so, it kind of seems a little odd that he’d then go off topic to talk about the future Messiah’s death. This may indeed be true, but just a little odd to me. With this in mind, what is Psalm 22:19 really talking about? If indeed all of Psalm 22 is really talking about Jesus, as the New Testament authors quoted it again and again, what about those verses where David called himself a sinner and useless human? “But I am a worm and not a man; a reproach of man, despised by peoples”? Is this somehow suggesting that Jesus did not view himself as a man, but a worm?

What about Psalm 22:9, it reads: “One should cast his trust upon Adonai, and He will rescue him; He will save him because He delights in him.”

Did Jesus rely on G-d to save him? How can this be show if Jesus is G-d?

Just as much as it could be proven that Psalm 22 is talking about Jesus, so can it be proven that it is about David pleading for G-d’s mercy from his enemies, who surround him like lions and dogs, ready to tear him apart. At the end of the psalm, do we get a glimpse of salvation, as all hearts turn to the L-rd in worship. This is a very different ending from Jesus, who was killed and raised from he dead.

I will read that PDF, thank you for sharing it. Below is a good digital version of the fragment.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I don’t mean to be nosy, but are you a Mormon? I realized that the author of the article is Mormon, perhaps it is a poor assumption on my end.
 
It is interesting to note that the author of the article cites the disputed claim that 72 rabbis did ALL of Tanakh in the Septuagint. This is totally untrue. Those rabbis only translated the five books of Moses, the Torah. We can find this in the Talmud (Megillah, 9a-9b), the Letter of Aristeas, Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, XII, ii, 1-4, and Jerome’s preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions, who said, "Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the seventy translators, reports them as translating only the Five Books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest.”

Note further that the original Septuagint was done 2,200 years, and that the original no longer exists, only copies of copies of copies, and all done by Christian hands, not Jewish ones. Moreover, the Septuagint only makes up about 5% of the Dead Sea Scrolls, whereas the proto-masoretic text makes up about 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And to top it off, I noted that the author used a second-hand source, not a primary one: Elliger and Rudolph, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1104.

This is always bad news! A good historian tries, as best he or she can, to stay as far away from secondary sources like they are the plague! I don’t mean to bash his scholarship, but perhaps a secondary source could be wrong? It is always best to do what I’ve just done, offered you primary sources, such as Josephus and Jerome.

Also noteworthy is that while the KJV relied heavily on our Masoretic text, they also cited the Christian Septuagint when it came time to prove Jesus was prophesied in Scripture.

The author also makes mention of the Masoretes, 10th century sages (some say Karaites, but many dispute this) for adding vowels (or nekudot, i.e., imprinting marks) to the Hebrew as if this were some shameful act. Again, that’s not the case at all. Biblical Hebrew is almost unreadable to the untrained, one has to study it to get a grasp. The Torah scroll removed in the congregation from the Ark is always celebrated like the one Moses was given, without vowels, without any spaces. So where did the Masoretes get their vowels from? Well, I’m sure no one just invented it. They claimed it was oral tradition, everyone knew how to pronounce these words. For example, there are seven different ways one could say שבת, it can mean anything without the context, so how do you know which is right? How do you know what חלב means in Exodus 23:19? Does it mean… perhaps (chalav - חָלָב) or fat (chelev - חֵלֶב)? So no one knows what G-d was saying there. Great. No, I think we do know, and it was known orally for a long time and all the Masoretes did was invent a system to symbolize the vowels, that’s it. They didn’t create a whole new reading for the text, they crate new vowels which weren’t there. That’s a lie. Don’t believe it.
 
So when the author writes: “Readings given by the Masoretic text are often the subject of debate because the Masoretic text solidified at such a late date. The voweling of the text, in particular, was added by the Masoretes, who thereby strongly determined how the text would read” in footnote 16, don’t believe it. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, I’m sorry, but he doesn’t. It’s true that the oldest complete Masoretic text we have I think is dated from the late 10th century, but he’s clearly wrong about these new invention of vowels, as if the Masoretes “planned” a Jewish reading to oust a Christian one. That’s just pure bogus. Sorry, but I had to get that off my chest.
 
Rabbi said:
See my points regarding Psalm 22:17, Jesus did not quote those words.
Click to expand...
Again, Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22, pointing directly to the prophetic events that were unfolding. He wasn’t going to recite the entire Psalm from the cross. He was lifted up on the cross, just like Moses raised the bronze serpent on the staff for all to behold and be healed.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Good parallel here; do you believe the entire Psalm is talking about Jesus? If so, how do you explain away the fact that David considered himself a sinner in some verses when Jesus was suppose to be perfect and without sin?
 
Again, Jesus took upon Himself the sins and the guilt of all mankind, as described in the prophecies of Isaiah. For example:

and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. … . he was led like a lamb to the slaughter . . . Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished. He was assigned a grave with the wicked. . though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities."
 
Rabbi said:
yod to a vav by failing to add a vertical descending line which would make it a yod.
Click to expand...
I see, good answer. If you don’t mind, I’d like to touch on Isaiah 53 perhaps after we finish with Psalm 22.
 
You’re really serious about Reform Jews marrying their dogs? What is the source of this, and how many people are you talking about? Further, what does being a Reform Jew have to do with this kind of behavior? You have also spoken about a Reform rabbi who accuses ALL Orthodox Jews of bigotry against non-Jews. If any rabbi has done this, it is wrong, needless to say. And although you have repeatedly said you don’t wish ill on any non-Orthodox Jew, you persist on citing examples in which Reform Jews exhibit absurd behavior. I’m sure you must realize this kind of behavior is hardly unique to Reform Jews. Orthodox Jews are surely not immune to outlandish comments and actions, and neither are Christians of all stripes, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, or anyone else.
 
Last edited:
As far as the Reform rabbi, I am in total agreement with you. Sadly, many of us do ridicule Reform Jews, and while something like this should never be done, it is true that many Reform Jews do not keep the Torah in full, the way it should be, and this, perhaps, incites just hostility in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Opps! I didn’t mean that the hostility is “just.” That’s a mere typo, please disregard that.
 
I think you will agree that Jews should not be fighting amongst themselves. There are enough true Jew haters in the world so that we need not contribute to their cause. Debating and arguing, yes, that’s inherent in Judaism; but not fighting. Even if a Jew does not keep Torah either partially or fully, that is their business, not yours or mine. Otherwise, we are judging others, which is offensive to our own tradition as well as Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
I couldn’t agree with you more, but can I ask you something? How reform are you? which part of Torah do you keep? Can anyone just decide to stop keeping shabbos? Is that even allowed? Can anyone decide to eat shrimp? Where does one draw the line?
 
This page at the Bible Hub website (link below) shows all seventeen occurrences of the verb כרה (karah) in the Hebrew Bible. Psalm 22:16 is the only one of the seventeen in which the word appears with an alef (א) in it: כארי.

My knowledge of Hebrew is only very rudimentary, but this intrusive alef strikes me as something that calls for an explanation. This article from Brigham Young University doesn’t mention it. I’d be interested in seeing something from a Christian source, backing the “dug/drilled/pierced” translation, that offers an explanation for the alef here, which on the face of it seems to support the “lion” reading.

Let me repeat: With my very scanty beginner’s knowledge of Hebrew, I’m not setting myself up as an expert. Far from it! I’d still like to see my question answered, though.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_3738.htm
 
Last edited:
This is too large a topic to summarize neatly. In short, however, there are a variety of Reform Jews, some of whom keep the kosher laws, at least partially, others not at all. The thinking is that these laws were good for their time and place but not meant to be kept for all time. It is part of the larger thinking of Reform Judaism that the religion itself is not constant, particularly with regard to ceremonial activities, but evolves according to the period and culture. The Reform movement believes in continuous revelation. It focuses on ethical and humanitarian social-justice issues of the era much more than ritualistic ones. At the same time, there has been a tendency of late to return to many of the rituals, both in the synagogue and in the home. Despite this, the three basic principles of a monotheistic, “omni” Gd, Torah moral values, and survival of Israel remain the bedrock of Reform Judaism.
 
Last edited:
I understand your point, however, I’d argue that it was exactly how rituals and traditions which helped us cope, with, for instance, the Shoah. So these things are obviously important and its always glad to know that the Reform is moving in a steady direction towards truth. Again, about you. Which mitzvot do you keep and which ones do you reject? And I’d like to know why. Thank you.
 
Yes, I am aware of the importance of external rituals as a sign of internal grace and holiness as well as a way of coping with the small and immense moral injustices of the world. All manner of our mundane human activities can take on a spiritual sanctity by means of remembrance and observance. And so I would not say I REJECT in theory any of the mitzvot. Some I do not practice, however. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I feel that my personal behavior should remain personal, especially on an Internet forum, and so I choose not to reveal what I do and do not observe.
 
Sorry, my last sentence to you got a little kooky. I was saying that the Masoretes did not invent a whole new way to read the Bible by adding “their new vowels,” if that makes sense. I’ve read the article in its entirely, so have others, and there are many problems.

So let’s just recap here: the Hebrew word used in the Masoretic text for Psalm 22:17 is כָּאֲרִי (“like a lion”), or kaari, and not the fictional word kaaru, which doesn’t exist. I will explain to you why in a moment. Again, note now that I also speak Hebrew, like Mr. Shon Hopkin in his article. As far as these other manuscripts are concerned, he has forgotten something: the Targum’s phrase is “how they bit/wounded me - like a lion, on my hands and feet,” which, actually, seems like a middle ground. This verse did bother our Chazal. Rashi says it means to say they are pressed in the mouth of a lion and compared it with Isaiah 38:13. Both Radak and Ibn Ezra said that the lion was actually part of the previous phrase, despite the punctuation, so that David was again surrounded at his hands and feet. The Malbim read it another way - that his (David’s) hands and feet were like lions, steadfast and strong against his enemies.

Nonetheless, the biggest problem is that its not a known Hebrew root, so the claim that it means “dug” per the Septuagint, or “pierced” rests on the root being כרה or כור, neither of which feature the aleph (א), as someone has already pointed out. Therefore, it certainly has a grammatical issue if Christians attempt to say that the root is אָרָה with the כ prefixed. In fact, if you google כארו you can see some references, but missionaries are not persuasive in their attempt at convincing Jews. כרו שוחות or with other nouns like בור, do not mean “pierce” (like nailing someone’s hand, say, to a cross. It means “dig.” I don’t understand why anyone would add an אלף to it. The hanging noun אריה is a little awkward but not uncommon as in תהילים, and even if it were kaaru, that wouldn’t prove anything, for all it seems to do is offer a single verse against almost 23,000 verses in all Tanakh which never make mention of the word again! Now, just to stroke your curiosity, the same verb שאג “roar” is used at the start of the psalm, verse 2, for David’s cry.
 
But to top this all off, recall that the scribe did a very bad job, he misspelled a lot of words. For instance, as I’ve already pointed out, the very next word after כָּאֲרִי, he added ה after ידי, making it “her hands” instead of “his hands.” If you know Hebrew well, you’d know that the mixed-up of the vav-yod is by far one of the most common errors, but this isn’t! Here are just a few more examples of terrible spelling from that fragment, the guy would have gotten a bad grade at his local yeshiva: The yod in verse 22:4 concerning Yisrael is as long as the previous vav - though its suspended slightly higher though its almost the same as the vav in the second batchu in 22:5; there is a missing vav prefix on the last word in 22:5; there appears to be two missing lameds that have to be added in 22:6; there is an extra vav or you prefixed to ‘am’ in 22:7; and, lastly, an extra “lamed” in yal’egu in 22:8…

And the list goes on with fragment 5/6HevPs. So do you see what I mean? The letters in this fragment are just not uniformed enough like other scrolls we find in Qumran… and it begs a question, because how can you believe this to be the word of G-d if it is so badly written? Would G-d rely on a badly written text to prove the Messiahship of Jesus?

Lastly, my friend, and you have to confront this: if this verse was so important to the Messiahship of Jesus and his mission, why was it never quoted in the Gospel? In other words, how come Psalm 22:17 doesn’t exist in any of the letters of Paul? How come? Was it not important enough? Seriously? This verse, which points to the crucifixion of Jesus, means nothing to the authors of the Gospel message? If I were Christian, this’d be a red flag. Its time to consider what’s really going on here, because if the Greek Septuagint isn’t the word of G-d, and if the word kaaru doesn’t exist, and if this hinges on everything, then you’ve got to ask yourself: ‘G-d, am I going in the right direction?’

I hope you pray the matter over tonight. Again, I only pointed to you these facts because I’ve been challenge. My aim is to convert no one; that’s not my job. That’s not what the Jewish community has set out to do. We believe all good people go to heaven, and Christians aren’t pagans in the slightest. All I ask of you, is that you seriously consider what’s been said here, and seriously study Hebrew, because there’s no better proof than reading it for yourself. Don’t rely on me, don’t rely on Mr. Hopkin, learn Hebrew yourself, see for yourself. Then make an educated, and thoughtful, and hopefully faithful, decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top