stephan huller

If people we could agree what 'Judaism' was at the turn of the Common Era we'd all be better off. But the term 'Judaism' was probably only was employed in the second century (the reference in Galatians is probably the result of a second century redactor). Neusner gets around this by speaking of 'Judaisms' but that's silly.

My take is that for the Christians at least (and probably many other Jewish and certainly Samaritan groups) only the ten commandments were given from God. The other 603 were only given on the authority of Moses. Already that gives a fair degree of latitude for the development of religious diversity.

The Marcionites did not reject the Old Testament but their doctrines probably represented this type of thinking just mentioned. No circumcision in the ten commandments, no divorce too. These are concerns of the gospel writer and the apostle who for the Marcionites was one and the same person.

sotto voce

There is no great problem about that. There are just two strands of thought in existence, and the difference derives from how Jesus of Nazareth is assessed.

One view (that every poster here seems to accept) is that written revelation reached its consummation in the events reported, and in the reaction thereto, in what is referred to as the New Testament; though this title is actually a misnomer. In this view, the 'New Testament' is actually culmination of the revelation that began in Genesis— if it means anything at all sensible, that is. The 'NT' makes so much reference to existing revelation, in every book of any size, that it cannot make sense, for the serious academic, to deal with 'OT' and 'NT' separately. For students of both, the 'OT' explains the 'NT', the 'NT' makes final sense of the 'OT', and the two make an organic whole.

Or a final sense. The alternative view is that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah; that this true agent will appear in the future, and the 'New Testament' is nugatory. That so few here hold to this view is probably due to the complete absence of acceptable and relevant revelation for well over two millennia now, and the removal of every mainstay of the admittedly temporary dispensation passed on by Moses, within a century of Jesus of Nazareth. But the view exists, if rather subdued.

It was employed by the writers of the 'NT', who considered themselves true Israelites, and true Jews. They referred to 'the Jews', but not in a spiritually descriptive sense, because they considered that those who continued to observe Mosaic Laws, a majority, had either failed to understand the whole revelation, or did not want to accept it, and retained 'Judaism' as means of opposing one whom they recognised as their own Messiah.

So here, the apostle refers to 'Jews' in the then current, colloquial sense:

'We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.' 1 Co 1:23 NIV

So here we have a person thinking himself a true Jew nevertheless referring to non-Jews as Jews, because he wished to cause no offence. Or confusion. His appellation should not be taken as fair description, because he clearly thought himself and the church to be the true Israel.

Here, another author refers to his own view, and that of his readers, as true Judaism:

'I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.' Rv 2:9 NIV

One must be cautious about what one takes. Anyone who calls himself a Christian who tells you that tale either has not a clue what he is talking about, or is just a liar. The Bible is crystal clear. E.g.:

'The Lord said to Moses... On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.' Lev 12:1...3 NIV

Now find a male Jew over eight days old who is not circumcised!

'If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands that I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.' Dt 28:1 NIV

No latitude.

And of course, founder patriarch Abraham took precedence over Moses anyway, and the command for circumcision was given to him and to his crucial descendants, starting with Isaac of the promise, then Jacob. Jacob, aka Israel!

Always a good idea to know what you are talking about, eh. No casual happenstance, no 'takes'.

JoeWallack

JW:
This is one of my favorite parts of polemics, when a Christian realizes that the United States is based on Judaism and not Christianity.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Zwaarddijk

It would be a good idea to learn what Judaism actually teaches, since it seems most of the people in this thread labor under the misconception that Judaism is the Old Testament and that's it. This is not the case, and it produces a great misunderstanding of what values Judaism teaches.

Jaybees

I crave enlightenment. My religious Jewish friends seem to put a tremendous emphasis on the OT, though they don't call it that. Isn't it at the core of Judaic beliefs?

sotto voce

It would be a good idea if Jews knew what Judaism actually teaches. Though most of us believe that Judaism teaches what Peter, Paul and John taught. But perhaps most of us are mistaken, and Christianity is imaginary. One cannot allege that 'Christianity' and 'Judaism' both have valid existence.

Of those who call themselves Jews, it is very hard to know who to believe. As they say themselves, ask four of them a question, get five answers. How long is a piece of string?

But they are unanimous, along with Muslims, Orthodox, Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses that mankind is not justified by faith, as Abraham and Israel were. They invariably cite that johnny-come-lately Moses, and that it is Law that justifies. Not just Mosaic Law, either, but the human laws of rabbis, whose provenance, like that of 'bishops', is murky. How long is a piece of string?

Zwaarddijk

After a matter, but the approach to it differs quite a significant bit from protestant Sola Scriptura-beliefs.

The Jewish religion does put a lot of emphasis on the Pentateuch. Much more so than on the rest of the OT, and it is not unusual that religious Jewish families actually not own the rest of the books of the OT, apparently. The Pentateuch can be found in volumes called 'Chumash'. The Pentateuch is also called Torah, but that's a polysemous word in Judaism, that can signify many different things. The entire OT, including the Pentateuch, is called the Tanach, which is an acronym - Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim (Torah, Prophets, Writings, the three categories that OT books are divided into in Judaism).

However, beliefs are not considered that important per se among religious Jews, praxis is more important. The praxis is not greatly elucidated in the Bible - although bits do appear in the Torah (and hints at it might be gleaned elsewhere, although this may be seen as eisegesis rather than exegesis as well). Through history, Jewish practice has developed, and customs are considered - by the orthodox at least - to be as binding as scripture is.

In fact, Orthodox Judaism (and conservative) go so far as to teach that God didn't give just the written Torah, he gave two; the written and the oral Torah. These are of equal value in Judaism. This seems to be an idea that in part developed from folk-beliefs, folk-practices, possibly some pagan influences, interaction with Zoroastrian beliefs, ... as well as actual practical decisions as to how to understand bits that were left unclear in the written ruleset in the pentateuch.

After the fall of the temple, and possibly even more so after the Bar Kochba revolt, some pharisees and rabbis felt that the Oral Torah might be lost due to the disarray in which the Jewish culture was at the time, and so went about to compile it. This was a break with tradition, and these compilations do tell that this was considered rather radical.

From this we get the Mishnah and later on the Gemara, which together form the Talmud, a very complex work of strange discussions of technicalities as well as the principles underlying the law, folklore, the cosmology of the Jewish religion of the time, ideas about God and the supernatural, ...

In these and later religious Jewish works, you find the methods by which the rabbis interpret the biblical law in lenient ways - as though they somehow realized that these laws are stupid, but due to custom knew they couldn't just abrogate them. So they came up with ways to get around them; meanwhile, they of course had some strange ideas of their own, so there are even stranger rules introduced (like, if a man wants to move to Israel, but his wife doesn't want to, he can divorce her without having to pay any settlement if she stays behind, and if he doesn't want to but she does, she can leave him behind and require a settlement).

Jewish law in practice differs much from that of the written Torah simply because the written Torah basically replaces the summary justice of the OT with a relatively civilized court system. I'd recommend some book like Cohen's Everyman's Talmud as an introduction to this entire topic.

sotto voce

That is the papist, legalistic, 'Judaising' version. It refers to Protestant sola Scriptura belief, the only belief that is rational in this matter. If one distinguishes between divinely inspired works and humanly inspired works, but puts them on equal footing, one tells divinity to go fuck itself. It's insanity, too.

Sola fide, the other Protestant tenet, uniquely has the validity of Abrahamic belief. All else attempts to make good a guilty conscience by means of rituals and/or hard work. No psychologist's remedy, even.

People who like to call themselves Jews do that. Unsurprisingly, as the later Tanakh promises that Mosaic Law is to be superseded!

Just like papism. Again.

Zwaarddijk

I set out to describe how Judaism *is*, not Judaism as you prefer it should be. If you don't get the difference, I don't understand why you even participate in discourse with people.

The complete irrelevancy of your contribution is noted.

sotto voce

You described what you think is Judaism, or want us to think is Judaism. Circularity. You have not argued from first principles, and your post is not in sympathy with FRDB. Judaism may be Christianity.

The de-emphasis on the later Tanakh accelerated after I pointed out the several promises therein that Mosaic Law was insufficient, and was to be replaced. Maybe coincidence, of course.

The issue here is about Christianity, not Judaism, and posts should reflect that fact.