posted
My thanks to Lisa and Rivka for being so useful in their recent comments on Judaism.
Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Christianity can often come across as Judaism's haughty bastard brother (disowned cousin if we really irk you).
I guess what I would really like to understand the Jewish perspective on some of the texts I apparently mistake as common between Christians and Jews.
I was under the impression that the entire Old Testament was considered canon by both Jews and Christians. I'd like to know just what is the Jewish perspective on the writings beyond the Talmud. Beyond the Law just how are other books of the Old Testament viewed? Is the book of kings considered an accurate history? Was Isaiah really a prophet speaking the words of God? When we reach Malachi are we in effect done with prophets as far as Judaism is concerned? I have MANY more questions I'd like answered but it remains to be seen if anybody cares to answer them.
I should also warn any respondents that I will probably ask you about your answers and once we close the book on one, fire another question in your direction. If you tire of my curiosity I understand, I just want to mine as much information as I can out of those who know these things.
It really does bother me that I do not really grasp what Judaism is. I'm hoping to remedy that problem to some extent, you assistance is always appreciated.
quote:Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Christianity can often come across as Judaism's haughty bastard brother (disowned cousin if we really irk you).
*amused* Something like that.
quote:I was under the impression that the entire Old Testament was considered canon by both Jews and Christians.
1) The term "Old Testament" is generally offensive to Jews. Instead of OT, try MT (for Masoretic Text). 2) For starters (and Dana gets mad at me every time I say this, but it really is true for the most part), ours is in Hebrew (except for the volume in Aramaic), and yours is in English. No translation can grasp every nuance. Or even come close.
quote: I'd like to know just what is the Jewish perspective on the writings beyond the Talmud.
Huh? The Talmud is distinct from the MT. The MT is what is often referred to as the Written Torah; the Talmud is the Oral Torah (which was written down about 2000 years ago to guard against it being lost in times when oral transmission became increasingly difficult).
quote: Is the book of kings considered an accurate history?
For the most part.
quote: Was Isaiah really a prophet speaking the words of God?
Yes. However, you will find that Christian translations of Isaiah defer noticeable from what we would consider an accurate translation.
quote: When we reach Malachi are we in effect done with prophets as far as Judaism is concerned?
quote:I was under the impression that the entire Old Testament was considered canon by both Jews and Christians.
Assuming we're not including the Apocrypha, this is correct.
quote:I'd like to know just what is the Jewish perspective on the writings beyond the Talmud.
Beyond the Talmud? The Talmud's something else entirely... notes from the Oral Law, written down cryptically to keep it from being forgotten. Its redaction came after the Written Law.
quote:Beyond the Law just how are other books of the Old Testament viewed?
I don't know what you mean by "Law" in this context, but here's the short answer: the 24 books of the "Old Testament" (or Tanach; from the Jewish standpoint, it hasn't been superceded by anything newer) are all considered holy, but are placed in three divisions. The Pentateuch was dictated by God to Moses, letter for letter. The Prophets include prophesies from God, as related by humans. The Writings are Divinely inspired, but not the verbatim word of God Himself. (I'm painting with broad strokes here, mind you. See also this page.)
quote:Is the book of kings considered an accurate history?
Pretty much, yes.
quote:Was Isaiah really a prophet speaking the words of God?
Absolutely.
quote:When we reach Malachi are we in effect done with prophets as far as Judaism is concerned?
There's some disagreement about exactly when prophecy ended and whether it's going to return before the Messiah does. (You might also argue that it's never ended inasmuch as Elijah has never died, but now we're splitting hairs.)
I highly recommend Judaism 101; the author's done a remarkable job of writing clear and concise explanations of Jewish topics for a general audience while avoiding any number of possible pitfalls.
(Edited to add that Rivka and I hit most of the same points, but I'll keep this up anyway.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry not Torah, but Pentateuch, or 5 books of Moses. Is everything beyond Deuteronomy until Malachi accepted at least as true within the Hebrew translation?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sorry not Torah, but Pentateuch, or 5 books of Moses. Is everything beyond Deuteronomy until Malachi accepted at least as true within the Hebrew translation?
The Torah, at least in the most common usage of the word, is the Pentateuch,
I thinks you meant "Sorry, not Talmud".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: I highly recommend Judaism 101; the author's done a remarkable job of writing clear and concise explanations of Jewish topics for a general audience while avoiding any number of possible pitfalls.
I could not possibly agree more. It is a marvelous site. I've learned stuff I didn't know there, and I survived 14 years in Jewish schools.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The Torah, at least in the most common usage of the word, is the Pentateuch.
Not true. The most common usage is far vaguer, and refers to ALL of Tanach, as well as the Talmud, and the body of responsa since (which also constitute the continued explication of the Oral Law). Second most common usage refers to the entire Tanach. I'd say that using it to refer to Torah as explicitly only the Pentateuch is about the third most common usage. Partly because calling it the word Chumash is more commonly used in that case.
(The page Shmuel linked to explains this in a bit more detail.)
quote: For starters (and Dana gets mad at me every time I say this, but it really is true for the most part), ours is in Hebrew (except for the volume in Aramaic), and yours is in English. No translation can grasp every nuance. Or even come close.
*amused*
I don't disagree with that at all. I've got a copy of the Masoretic text on the shelf over my desk, and while I'm not fluent enough (yet) to read much of it without study aids, I do use it. There are some Christians that consider particular English translations authoritative (if the King James Version was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for them!), but I'm not one of 'em.
Wait, I guess I do disagree with the statement that that's a difference between the "Christian" and the "Jewish" Bible. The difference would be that more Jews can read the actual Bible in its original language and most Christians require someone else to translate it for them. But that doesn't mean they're using a different Bible, just that they're an extra step removed from the same text.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: My thanks to Lisa and Rivka for being so useful in their recent comments on Judaism.
Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Christianity can often come across as Judaism's haughty bastard brother (disowned cousin if we really irk you).
It depends on who is saying it and to whom. Christianity, from a Jewish point of view, is actually a lot worse than that. Consider Satanist cults. Most of them actually start from a Christian point of view, and just reverse it. They take the concept of Satan straight out of Christianity, but worship it, rather than God.
For a lot of Christians I've spoken to, that's the most horrifying thing there can be. It's not just wrong, but a distortion of everything they hold holy. Christianity is a lot like that for us. Some of the most basic concepts, which a cursory glance might see as being shared between Judaism and Christianity, are actually only common labels given to utterly different concepts.
We say God is One. You say you're monotheists, but have a trinity. We've had a concept of an anointed king, and you've merged the concepts of messiah and savior, and turned a human being into a deity. We have a God who gave us "eternal statutes" for "all our generations", and you have a deity who either changed his mind or wasn't entirely truthful about the whole "eternal" thing.
Medically, there's a term for when a part of your own body turns against you and tries to kill you. For most of the history of Christianity, it's been exactly like that. Something born as a Jewish heresy, at least in part, which became malignant.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I guess what I would really like to understand the Jewish perspective on some of the texts I apparently mistake as common between Christians and Jews.
I was under the impression that the entire Old Testament was considered canon by both Jews and Christians. I'd like to know just what is the Jewish perspective on the writings beyond the Talmud. Beyond the Law just how are other books of the Old Testament viewed?
Here is an old post where I addressed this a little. I assume that you meant the Torah, rather than the Talmud.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Is the book of kings considered an accurate history?
Absolutely. But understand... it's not a history the way we're used to history books nowadays. Everything related in it is historically true, but it's not the whole story. It's the parts that teach the lesson that its author(s) meant to teach. It's a didactic history.
For example, suppose the Egyptians invaded Judah during the reign of King Uzziah. There's no mention of any such thing in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Relating such an invasion at that time would have taught a lesson. And perhaps that was not an appropriate lesson. So it was left out.
Not that there actually was such an invasion. I'm speaking hypothetically. There might have been, but we don't know, because Kings and Chronicles do not purport to be a comprehensive history.
Sometimes, when someone gets ill, it's because God is sending them a message. Sometimes, though, it's just because they got sick. If we were to read that King David got sick, the assumption would be that he did something to deserve it. If that wasn't actually the case (and remember, the book of Kings was written by prophets, so they know), then such an illness would have been left out, and we'd never even know about it.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Was Isaiah really a prophet speaking the words of God?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When we reach Malachi are we in effect done with prophets as far as Judaism is concerned?
Malachi was the last of the prophets. But you have to understand that what we mean by prophet and prophecy is not the same thing that you do. There will be prophecy again, and even after Malachi... well, the difference between prophecy and what we call Ruach HaKodesh (divine spirit) is only a matter of degree.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I have MANY more questions I'd like answered but it remains to be seen if anybody cares to answer them.
I'll answer anything. And please believe me (I know there are people here who won't, because they've made it clear in the past), but my bluntness is not because I'm trying to insult you. The enormous and insuperable differences between Judaism and Christianity almost ensure that any frank talk about these concepts will offend one side or the other. Generally both. As a consequence, most people refuse to actually deal with the issues, and prefer to obscure them with politically correct niceties.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I should also warn any respondents that I will probably ask you about your answers and once we close the book on one, fire another question in your direction.
I'll give you detailed answers to anything you want to ask. Or, if I can't, I'll point you in the direction where you can get the answers. Or... in the case that it's inappropriate to answer a question, I'll explain why.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you tire of my curiosity I understand, I just want to mine as much information as I can out of those who know these things.
No problem here. Incidentally, last year, I started a blog (which, like most blogs, never really got maintained) called Torah 101. One of the 4 entries on that site is the initial post in the Torah 101 thread I linked to before. You may find it useful.
Oh. Jargon. There's a lot of technical jargon involved. It's a specialized field of knowledge, Torah is, and translations, as Rivka pointed out, are never really translations. They're approximations, at best. But it's important to say things so that they'll be understood. It's kind of a balancing act. So if I use jargon, I'll try and make a point of explaining it. If I don't, please call me on it, and I'll be sure to explain what I was talking about.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It really does bother me that I do not really grasp what Judaism is. I'm hoping to remedy that problem to some extent, you assistance is always appreciated.
I live to serve. <grin>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The Torah, at least in the most common usage of the word, is the Pentateuch.
Not true. The most common usage is far vaguer, and refers to ALL of Tanach, as well as the Talmud, and the body of responsa since (which also constitute the continued explication of the Oral Law). Second most common usage refers to the entire Tanach. I'd say that using it to refer to Torah as explicitly only the Pentateuch is about the third most common usage. Partly because calling it the word Chumash is more commonly used in that case.
For those of you who live in California, or remember the Chumash Indian curse put on Xander in an episode of Buffy, note that the Hebrew term chumash, denoting either one of the five books of the Pentateuch, or all five of them (depending on the context) is pronounced with the same initial sound as Hanukkah/Chanukah. It's not pronounced like the English \ch\ or \sh\.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the vast majority of Christians consider one or more of the English translations authoritative (and that is certainly both my impression and that of many people, Christian and not, that I have asked), then I disagree. Christians (IME, anyway) do not refer to an English-only text as a translation, but as a Bible.
Even when some dispute over wording arises, people argue about which version to use, not whether they should be using translations at all.
If not using a translation were important to most lay Christians, Greek and Hebrew would be considered necessary. Certainly anyone becoming a religious Jew (either born Jewish or otherwise) will find it virtually impossible to do so without at least SOME ability to read and understand Hebrew!
A translation cannot ever be equivalent to the original. It is not just "a step removed"; it is a substantially different text in a million small and not-so-small ways.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the vast majority of Christians consider one or more of the English translations authoritative (and that is certainly both my impression and that of many people, Christian and not, that I have asked),
I don't believe that a vast majority of Christians do. And I am surprised and saddened that enough do that you have that impression.
At an "official" level it's not true of any of the mainline Protestant denominations, and I'm pretty sure not the RC, although they have an "authorized" translation. Hebrew and/or Greek at at least a basic level are required for clergy in many denominations (at least among the ones that have educational requirements for their clergy) and graduation from most seminaries. Certainly anyone who considers him or herself a Biblical scholar will be studying in the original languages.
And lay Christians who are serious about Bible study will either study with someone who knows some Hebrew/Greek or (at the very least) compare several translations and consult comentaries written by people who are fluent in Hebrew (or Greek, for the NT).
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And lay Christians who are serious about Bible study
The fact that the larger group is not virtually identical to the group included with the modifier is my point. They're not even close.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no. But that isn't a difference, there are also Jews who are not serious about their religion, right?
Granted there are probably more nominal Christians than non-practicing Jews, but I wouldn't dare to guess at it as a percentage basis. I have no idea.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It depends on who is saying it and to whom. Christianity, from a Jewish point of view, is actually a lot worse than that.
This is probably obvious, but I'd like to say that this is a Jewish point of view, but decidedly not the Jewish point of view. While granting that Christianity and Judaism have fundamental differences, there are different ways of seeing their relationship. (Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.)
quote:Originally posted by dkw: But that isn't a difference, there are also Jews who are not serious about their religion, right?
A fair point.
The few Christians I've talked religion with have been very well aware of the translation issues, for whatever that's worth.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: This is probably obvious, but I'd like to say that this is a Jewish point of view, but decidedly not the Jewish point of view. While granting that Christianity and Judaism have fundamental differences, there are different ways of seeing their relationship. (Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.)
This is a good (and important) point. The Meiri actually was of the opinion that while Christianity is forbidden for Jews, it is not problematic for bnei Noach (non-Jews).
Dana, I don't meant to ignore your post. But to properly answer it I would have to get into what it means to be a "practicing" Jew versus what it means to be a "practicing" Christian. And I simply don't have the energy. I will point out that "Jewish atheist" is not an oxymoron, but I'm pretty sure that "Christian atheist" would be.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christianity is basically seen as a perversion.
It is the golden calf, only a million times worse. Instead of praying to a chunk of metal, you pray and worship a human being instead of God. It's seen as idolatry at it's most obscene.
The notion of God taking a physical form is blasphemous. The notion that there are three Gods, or God divided up into a trinity, is blasphemous.
Basically, Christianity is seen as a cult started by a charismatic leader who managed to convert some weak-willed Jews who were too eager for the real messiah to arrive. And from there, his new religion started to eat away and wound the last real believers in the true God--the God of Abraham and Issac--the Jews.
The advent of Christianity was basically the worst man-made thing that could have happened to Judaism because, not only did it draw more and more people away from the true God, but it is also a key factor to the state of subjugation the Jews found themselves for thousands of years.
And then Islam--a cult of a cult--came and continued the same trend.
Almost everything in Christianity--Catholicism, especially--is a distortion. The thought of talking to God through a middle man is unimaginable to Jews.
A simple analogy would be: Christianity is to Judaism as The Branch Davidians are to Christianity.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, I've been studying the Tanak (as well as the New Testament) and learning about all of this stuff, so its' nice to read others talking about something I'm now learning about!
But I do have a question about the Torah, the first third of the Tanak. (Torah, Na'im(?), and... gah, what was the Hebrew for the Writings?)
It's said that it was dictated to Moses by God Himself.
This includes the parts in which it describes Moses's death, and the events afterward...?
Forgive me for finding that a bit strange. I'd certainly imagine that should Moses actually get those words from Yahweh beforehand, it'd, um... affect the future events. (it would if I got said commandments. Regardless of who I was.)
And was not Deuteronomy not first found in the Temple during renovations in the time of King Josiah? At a rather convenient time, just in time for King Josiah's religious reforms?
If my questions annoy you, please remember that as one who is not a Jew, I'm going to question it. The way I question most everything, including my own religion, so it's not an attack, it's just my MO, especially when I find something that doesn't seem to make perfect sense to me. I have nothing but respect for Judaism (and the Yahwism that preceeded it before the Babylonian Exile) and if you forgive the probably heretical questions, I'd like to hear what you say about such matters.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I do have a question about the Torah, the first third of the Tanak. (Torah, Na'im(?), and... gah, what was the Hebrew for the Writings?)
Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim
quote:It's said that it was dictated to Moses by God Himself.
Yup.
quote:This includes the parts in which it describes Moses's death, and the events afterward...?
You are not the first person to ask this question. The usual two possibilities given:
The last few verses were written by Yehoshua (Joshua) after Moshe's death.
The verses were dictated by God to Moshe shortly before his death, and Moshe wrote them "b'dima'ot" -- in tears. (The Hebrew word could mean either while crying, or using the tears as ink, just as the English phrase can.)
I like the second one better, but I'm sappy.
quote:And was not Deuteronomy not first found in the Temple during renovations in the time of King Josiah? At a rather convenient time, just in time for King Josiah's religious reforms?
Nope. But it's not the first time I've heard this claim, which is based on a mistranslation (IIRC).
quote:If my questions annoy you, please remember that as one who is not a Jew, I'm going to question it.
*snort* I get far worse than this over on the Torah.org forums.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: It depends on who is saying it and to whom. Christianity, from a Jewish point of view, is actually a lot worse than that.
This is probably obvious, but I'd like to say that this is a Jewish point of view, but decidedly not the Jewish point of view. While granting that Christianity and Judaism have fundamental differences, there are different ways of seeing their relationship. (Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.)
Well... yes and no. What he actually says is that Christianity is a terrible error, but that God's ways aren't ours, and everything is part of His plan. And that Christianity and Islam, for all that they aren't true, have had the side-effect of making everyone on earth aware of the Torah, thereby prepping them for the Messianic era, when the truth will triumph.
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: But that isn't a difference, there are also Jews who are not serious about their religion, right?
A fair point.
The few Christians I've talked religion with have been very well aware of the translation issues, for whatever that's worth.
And I've run into a vast number of Jews who are blissfully unaware of the translation issues. So I have to agree with Dana on this one.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: This is probably obvious, but I'd like to say that this is a Jewish point of view, but decidedly not the Jewish point of view. While granting that Christianity and Judaism have fundamental differences, there are different ways of seeing their relationship. (Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.)
This is a good (and important) point. The Meiri actually was of the opinion that while Christianity is forbidden for Jews, it is not problematic for bnei Noach (non-Jews).
It's not just the Meiri. I wouldn't actually use the Meiri as the sole authority on this, because the only extant version of the Meiri was found in the Vatican. We don't actually know whether his views in this matter were what we currently see in print.
Nevertheless, the prevailing view is that Christianity is not idolatry for non-Jews. It is, of course, for Jews.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the vast majority of Christians consider one or more of the English translations authoritative (and that is certainly both my impression and that of many people, Christian and not, that I have asked),
I seriously doubt it's the vast majority, too. It's not been in my experiences with Catholics or evangelicals (in the current imprecise sense in which the term is used).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: But I do have a question about the Torah, the first third of the Tanak. (Torah, Na'im(?), and... gah, what was the Hebrew for the Writings?)
Torah, Nevi'im (plural for Navi, or Prophet), and Ketuvim (Writings). You'll also see it written "Kesuvim", and the original pronunciation was probably "Kethuvim".
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: It's said that it was dictated to Moses by God Himself.
This includes the parts in which it describes Moses's death, and the events afterward...?
Forgive me for finding that a bit strange. I'd certainly imagine that should Moses actually get those words from Yahweh beforehand, it'd, um... affect the future events. (it would if I got said commandments. Regardless of who I was.)
Reasonable question. Although, if you don't mind, using the name you're using for God is very offensive from a Jewish POV. A religious Jewish POV, that is. It'd be greatly appreciated if you could use something else. God, or Hashem (which literally means "the Name", and is the way we deal with not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton).
There are different views on whether God gave the entire Torah to Moses during his 40 days up on Sinai, or whether he received it bit by bit in the 40 years in the desert. There's a midrash that says about the last 8 verses of the Torah, "God spoke it, and Moses wrote it in tears."
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: And was not Deuteronomy not first found in the Temple during renovations in the time of King Josiah? At a rather convenient time, just in time for King Josiah's religious reforms?
Nope. Moses wrote 13 copies (original master copies) of the Torah. One for each tribe, and one to be kept in the Ark. When Josiah became king, it was after 2 years of his father Amon and 55 years of his grandfather Menasseh. Two of the worst kings we ever had. The Torah had been neglected. Idols had been worshipped in the Temple itself.
When they started the Temple renovations, they came across one of the original copies of the Torah, and it was open to the section in which God promises major curses on us if we screw up, as we basically had at that point for a good half century.
That's why they freaked. Read the actual text, and you'll see that the whole idea that they first found Deuteronomy then is very forced. It wasn't Deuteronomy, and it wasn't "first found" at that time.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: If my questions annoy you, please remember that as one who is not a Jew, I'm going to question it. The way I question most everything, including my own religion, so it's not an attack, it's just my MO, especially when I find something that doesn't seem to make perfect sense to me. I have nothing but respect for Judaism (and the Yahwism that preceeded it before the Babylonian Exile) and if you forgive the probably heretical questions, I'd like to hear what you say about such matters.
I don't have any problem with your questions. And although you aren't asking here, I will point out that Judaism didn't come into being after the Babylonian Exile. It was the same thing before and after.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Maimonides, for instance, saw Christianity as a step toward bringing a more monotheistic outlook to the non-Jewish world.
I just wanted to follow up on this with the actual quote of what the Rambam said:
quote:Even of Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court, Daniel had prophesied, as it is written: And the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall stumble [Daniel 11:14]. For has there ever been a greater stumbling than this? All the prophets affirmed that the Messiah would redeem Israel, save them, gather their dispersed, and confirm the commandments. But he caused Israel to be destroyed by the sword, their remnants to be dispersed and humiliated. He was instrumental in changing the Torah and causing the world to err and serve another beside God.
But it is beyond the human mind to fathom the designs of the Creator; for our ways are not His ways, neither are our thoughts His thoughts. All these matters relating to Jesus of Nazareth and the Ishmaelite [Muhammad] who came after him, only served to clear the way for King Messiah, to prepare the whole world to worship God with one accord, as it is written: For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent [Zephaniah 3:9]. Thus the messianic hope, the Torah, and the commandments have become familiar topics--topics of conversation [among the inhabitants] of the far isles and many peoples, uncircumcised of heart and flesh. They are discussing these matters and the commandments of the Torah. Some say: "Those commandments were true, but have lost their validity and are no longer binding." Others declare that they had an esoteric meaning and were not intended to be taken literally, that the Messiah has already come and revealed their occult significance. But when the true King Messiah will appear and succeed, be exalted and lifted up, they will forthwith recant and realize that they have inherited naught but lies from their fathers, that their prophets and forbears led them astray. [Laws of Kings and Wars 11:4; this passage was deleted from most of the editions published since the Venice edition of 1574]
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: Christianity is basically seen as a perversion.
It is the golden calf, only a million times worse. Instead of praying to a chunk of metal, you pray and worship a human being instead of God. It's seen as idolatry at it's most obscene.
...it's not seen this way by the overwhelming majority of us, I daresay, even confining "us" to the Orthodox.
At any rate, the question of just how Jewish people view Christianity seems at best tangental to the thread in general, so I can't see why y'all are choosing to dwell on it.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim
Ketuvim
You say "Ketuvim" I say "Kesuvim" I say "Kesuva" And you say "Ketuba" Ketuba, Kesuva Ketuvim, Kesuvim Let's call the whole thing off...
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: At any rate, the question of just how Jewish people view Christianity seems at best tangental to the thread in general, so I can't see why y'all are choosing to dwell on it.
I agree. It think it stems from BlackBlade's initial post, where he said:
quote:Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Christianity can often come across as Judaism's haughty bastard brother (disowned cousin if we really irk you).
quote:Originally posted by rivka: 1) The term "Old Testament" is generally offensive to Jews. Instead of OT, try MT (for Masoretic Text).
What about "Hebrew Bible"? I ask because I had a college course on the text, and the professor exclusively referred to it as such.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It's one thing when you use Ivrit Moderni pronunciation when speaking in general. If speaking to an Israeli, so do I!
But when discussing sifrei kodesh, to suggest that it is wrong to use lashon hakodesh is laughable.
In fairness, there's more than one dialect of lashon hakodesh out there now. Sefardit predates Modern Hebrew. (And the Taymanim are probably closer to the original than we Ashkenazim, for that matter.)
...I think we're demonstrating the truth of the adage that when you put three Jews in a room, you end up with four opinions. Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
And as narr is Ashkenazi, your (quite valid) points about Sephardim and Taymanim don't really help him much.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: 1) The term "Old Testament" is generally offensive to Jews. Instead of OT, try MT (for Masoretic Text).
What about "Hebrew Bible"? I ask because I had a college course on the text, and the professor exclusively referred to it as such.
Eh. You will find academics using it. But it's a bit misleading -- to refer to the original text as though IT were the translation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The Torah, at least in the most common usage of the word, is the Pentateuch.
Not true. The most common usage is far vaguer, and refers to ALL of Tanach, as well as the Talmud, and the body of responsa since (which also constitute the continued explication of the Oral Law). Second most common usage refers to the entire Tanach. I'd say that using it to refer to Torah as explicitly only the Pentateuch is about the third most common usage. Partly because calling it the word Chumash is more commonly used in that case.
The OED as well as all of the first ten links found by google on the subject (many written by Rabbi's) define the Torah as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. I'm willing to accept that other definitions are in common usage in certain orthodox jewish schools, but my research confirms that it is the most common usage of the word among English speakers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Torah, Nevi'im, Kesuvim
Ketuvim
It's one thing when you use Ivrit Moderni pronunciation when speaking in general. If speaking to an Israeli, so do I!
But when discussing sifrei kodesh, to suggest that it is wrong to use lashon hakodesh is laughable. And kind of sad.
Especially because Ketuvim isn't any more correct than Kesuvim.
But I don't know that I'd call the Ashkenazis pronunciation "Lashon HaKodesh" like that. For one thing, Sephardim are just as kodesh as Ashkenazim, and for another, just because Germans couldn't pronounce the unvoiced \th\ sound and replaced it with a \s\ instead doesn't make it "authentically Jewish".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: ...I think we're demonstrating the truth of the adage that when you put three Jews in a room, you end up with four opinions.
See, and I'd always heard it was "two Jews, three opinions" (she said, proving both adages correct).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The OED as well as all of the first ten links found by google on the subject (many written by Rabbis) define the Torah as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. I'm willing to accept that other definitions are in common usage in certain orthodox jewish schools, but my research confirms that it is the most common usage of the word among English speakers.
Given that a large chunk of those who use the word on a daily basis don't use the internet except for work, I don't consider Google (or any online source) particularly relevant.
You know, Rabbit, I would not have the chutzpah to correct you on a Mormon-specific word usage.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I vote for either Jewish Bible, Bible, or Tanach. Or Tanakh, for purists. Or even TaNaKh. <grin>
In terms of the ad, I see "How Funny is Franken". How can you have an ad for a fake holiday invented on a TV show?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The OED as well as all of the first ten links found by google on the subject (many written by Rabbis) define the Torah as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. I'm willing to accept that other definitions are in common usage in certain orthodox jewish schools, but my research confirms that it is the most common usage of the word among English speakers.
Given that a large chunk of those who use the word on a daily basis don't use the internet except for work, I don't consider Google (or any online source) particularly relevant.
You know, Rabbit, I would not have the chutzpah to correct you on a Mormon-specific word usage.
Torah is used exactly as Rabbit says. That's one of its uses. And it's not at all uncommon even among Orthodox Jews.
When you're discussing the Torah, as opposed to the rest of Tanach, Torah is by far the most common term used. A Torah scroll, or Sefer Torah, is called just that. A chumash is specifically a printed copy of the Torah.
Yes, Torah also means the entire corpus of law and lore given to us at Sinai and passed down and studied for the past 33+ centuries. But there's no reason to keep giving Rabbit a hard time for what's basically a correct statement.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The most common usage is far vaguer, and refers to ALL of Tanach, as well as the Talmud, and the body of responsa since (which also constitute the continued explication of the Oral Law). Second most common usage refers to the entire Tanach. I'd say that using it to refer to Torah as explicitly only the Pentateuch is about the third most common usage.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: When you're discussing the Torah, as opposed to the rest of Tanach, Torah is by far the most common term used.
You're both right. The most common word used for the Pentateuch is "Torah" (with "Chumash" being in second place, I'd say), but the most common meaning of "Torah" -- by a fairly wide margin -- refers to the entire corpus of Written and Oral Law down to present-day writings. Context is everything. Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will point out that "Jewish atheist" is not an oxymoron, but I'm pretty sure that "Christian atheist" would be.
This is interesting. I've heard this before. Is this just another way of saying someone who is Jewish by birth/culture/heritage, but who's personal religious views are athiestic?
I'm curious because it'd describe me pretty well. I'm an athiest, but I was raised Jewish, attended an orthodox Hebrew school for 8 years(half day hebrew studies, half day english studies), I have a strong sense of identity with the Jewish people and still consider myself "Jewish" to a large degree.
Do practicing Jews really not have a problem with that phrase?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is interesting. I've heard this before. Is this just another way of saying someone who is Jewish by birth/culture/heritage, but who's personal religious views are athiestic?
Pretty much.
quote:Do practicing Jews really not have a problem with that phrase?
With the phrase? I don't think so. With the concept? Well, it saddens me. But it doesn't offend me or anything.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will point out that "Jewish atheist" is not an oxymoron, but I'm pretty sure that "Christian atheist" would be.
This is interesting. I've heard this before. Is this just another way of saying someone who is Jewish by birth/culture/heritage, but who's personal religious views are athiestic?
I'm curious because it'd describe me pretty well. I'm an athiest, but I was raised Jewish, attended an orthodox Hebrew school for 8 years(half day hebrew studies, half day english studies), I have a strong sense of identity with the Jewish people and still consider myself "Jewish" to a large degree.
Do practicing Jews really not have a problem with that phrase?
Well, of course we have a problem with it. But it doesn't change the fact that "a Jew who sins is still a Jew". Cardinal Lustiger is a Jew. Becoming an atheist or converting to another religion doesn't stop a person from being Jewish. It just means they aren't currently doing the right thing. Tomorrow, maybe they will.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I was raised Jewish, attended an orthodox Hebrew school for 8 years(half day hebrew studies, half day english studies),
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The way I question most everything, including my own religion, so it's not an attack, it's just my MO, especially when I find something that doesn't seem to make perfect sense to me. I have nothing but respect for Judaism (and the Yahwism that preceeded it before the Babylonian Exile) and if you forgive the probably heretical questions, I'd like to hear what you say about such matters.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The usual two possibilities given: ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
