Why the NT is Historically and Theologically not acceptable for Torath Mosheh Jews

[Ehav4Ever]

While Ehav4ever is correct that the “original” Jewish Christians obviously died,

See. We agree on so much just on this one point alone. That is enough reason for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to leave the Christianity for others to do. You seem happy enough with it. You keep it and enjoy.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

All people that lived before year 1800 have disappeared, by what I know, so, none of them kept Torah correctly?

Also, here is a group that out lasted the early Jewish Christians - the Samaritans.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Ehav4Ever :

Clear said : "Ehav4ever is correct that the “original” Jewish Christians obviously died,..."
Ehav4ever said : "We agree on so much just on this one point alone. That is enough reason for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews to leave the Christianity for others to do."

Again, your conclusion is irrational. The fact that all ancient Jews are dead and all of the ancient Christians are dead is does not mean someone should either remain with or exit from any specific religion. My point to 1213 is that the ancient Torath Mosheh Judaism does not exist nowadays, but is replaced by different movement that may call themselves by the same name. The ancient Judaism is gone and replaced by a different religion.

This is what I mean when pointing out that the religion that was Judaism anciently, no longer exists.

The early religion called “Judaism” had prophets, the modern religions calling themselves Judaism name do not have prophets.

The early religion called “Judaism” created scriptures through revelation. The modern religions that call themselves “Judaism” do not produce scripture by revelation.

The early religion called “Judaism” practiced a temple service with an actual temple. The modern religions calling themselves “Judaism” do not have a temple service.

The early religion called “Judaism” had a fully functioning priesthood that officiated in ordinances including temple service. The modern religions that call themselves “Judaism” do not have a fully functioning priesthood in the same manner, but instead are lead, for the most part, by rabbis who are not fully functioning priests.


The point I was trying to make to 1213 is that the modern Jews are not of the same religion as ancient Jews despite having the same name even despite viewing themselves as the same religion or even despite claiming they are the same religion.

Clear
ειακακσιω

 

[rosends]

Yes.

The dead sea scrolls have examples of stark differences in text and show glosses in the Masoretic.
The Masoretes, who created the Jewish Masoretic bible themselves describe differences in the Masorah.

There is substantial discussion of the role and purpose of the DSS and their authorship. Using them to prove differences in text is a difficult task without knowing if they were placed in pots as genizah or if they were written by branch sects who had separate textual traditions.

rosends, Can you demonstrate this claim in any comparison of ancient Assyrian biblical text as compared to a Hebrew text or that the two were the same language or why they are viewed as different languages by linguists?

In the talmudic discussion, there is conversation regarding the shape of the letters (as often, the shape contributes a level of meaning to text so the assignation of particular shape is important). But as I said, the issue was the use of letters, not the translation between distinct languages. Using an alphabet is not tantamount to rewriting in another language.

But we DO have texts written in other languages.

But not of the biblical texts which are authoritative and predate the text we have. Therefore the claim that these particular texts must have been in another language is an empty assertion. If you see the biblical myth as derivative and a human construct following the creation of other national origin/creation myths, then you will see it as using a language that has a place along a continuum, but that is a matter of subscribing to a specific historical and sociological understanding of the writing of the bible. But then the theory wags the language.

rosends, I am not saying that national hebrew is not old,

I'm still not clear on the label. There is biblical, post biblical, mishnaic, medieval and modern Hebrew (and probably others) but I don't know how "national" fits in to that.

I am saying we have no evidence that National Hebrew of the Masoretic bible is the same language spoken by Adam or Abraham or Moses who lived in a time and place when National Hebrew did not exist historically.

Nor have we proof that they spoke any other language or that the biblical text existed in any other language. A lack of proof all around, then.

If we see the biblical text as proof of that "national Hebrew" and its transcription simply a converting into shaped letters of that earlier (Hebrew) oral text then we come to different conclusions. If the argument is simply that we have other ancient documents in other languages, but no earlier Hebrew documents, therefore Hebrew must not have existed, then let that be your claim of proof by absence.

 

[rosends]

MODERN "JUDAISM" IS NOT THE SAME RELIGION AS ANCIENT "JUDAISM"

I might as well point out that the religion that was Judaism anciently, no longer exists.

The early religion called “Judaism” had prophets, the modern religions calling themselves Judaism name do not have prophets.

The early religion called “Judaism” created scriptures through revelation. The modern religions that call themselves “Judaism” do not produce scripture by revelation.

The early religion called “Judaism” practiced a temple service with an actual temple. The modern religions calling themselves “Judaism” do not have a temple service.

The early religion called “Judaism” had a fully functioning priesthood that officiated in ordinances including temple service. The modern religions that call themselves “Judaism” do not have a fully functioning priesthood in the same manner, but instead are lead, for the most part, by rabbis who are not fully functioning priests.


One could go on comparing the original Judaism with modern religions that call themselves Judaism, but the point is the modern Jews are not of the same religion as ancient Jews despite having the same name.

I find these comparisons troubling as they bespeak a lack of understanding about what "Judaism" is. As a complex cultural and religious system, it is an evolving set of understandings and obligations driven by an underlying code. Take your first statement, that modern Judaism must be a different religion because of a lack of prophets. But Judaism taught about the end of the prophet system as part of Judaism. So to claim difference by virtue of a characteristic which is inherent IN the system is flawed.

The same is true for the notion of "revelation" creating scripture. If the religion has built in the end of "revelation" in that biblical sense, then the lack of such new texts is in line with the established parameters of the religion.

The lack of a temple service is a function of the lack of a temple. This does not change the nature of the religion as the religious laws long ago set up expectations for ritual in the absence of the temple. In the same sense, we have a tradition of priesthood even today and it plays a role in public life and practice. We also have rabbis (the two roles are completely unrelated). But since there is no temple, a category of law and ritual tied to the temple cannot be how we express our religion. That doesn't change the religion -- that change is an essential part OF the ancient religion.

 

[Clear]

Hi rosends

rosends said : "There is substantial discussion of the role and purpose of the DSS and their authorship. Using them to prove differences in text is a difficult task without knowing if they were placed in pots as genizah or if they were written by branch sects who had separate textual traditions." (post #164)

I agree that there were multiple different versions of the Tanakh and I agree that the DSS is a different version than that of the Masoretic.
I agree that the DSS represents an earlier version and it could have been a version belonging to a "branch sect".
I also agree that the Masoretic version could just as easily represent a version belonging to a branch sect and the DSS the original.
I do like the logic of your suggestion though the application can go either way.



Rosend said : “the issue was the use of letters, not the translation between distinct languages. Using an alphabet is not tantamount to rewriting in another language” (post #164)

I agree with this point.
However, I am not talking about simply using a different alphabet, but using a different language.

For example, If you are suggesting ancient Assyrian and Hebrew were the same language, can you tell us if their grammar, lexicon, phonetics, morphology, syntax and semantics were the same?



Clear said : “But we DO have texts written in other languages. “
Rosends responded : “But not of the biblical texts which are authoritative and predate the text we have.”

My point was that other written languages existed at a time when no evidence of written Hebrew existed.
IF the biblical stories were written down in this time before Hebrew existed, then the stories had to be written in a different, existing language.


REGARDING NATIONAL HEBREW

rosends said : "I'm still not clear on the label. There is biblical, post biblical, mishnaic, medieval and modern Hebrew (and probably others) but I don't know how "national" fits in to that."

We can call it “Masoretic Hebrew” of “medieval Hebrew” if you want.
The label won’t matter to me other than to clearly define it as the Hebrew the Masoretic came to be written in.
What I want to avoid is the tendency of bias that tries to label multiple ancient languages (e.g. Assyrian or “proto-Canaanite”, etc. ) as “hebrew”.



Rosends said : “If we see the biblical text as proof of that "national Hebrew" and its transcription simply a converting into shaped letters of that earlier (Hebrew) oral text then we come to different conclusions.”

I think this is good logic if you are speaking of source documents from earliest period of written language when the stories were, presumably written down.
If anyone can show that the oldest writing in existence is actually Hebrew with different letters, but the same grammar and lexicon and syntax and semantics, etc, then Hebrew has to be the oldest written language.

However, I must point out that historical theories of the existence of something or an occurrence of something are not done by “absence of data” in most cases.

For now, there is no data supporting the claim that written Hebrew was the written language used by Abraham, etc.


The main principles are :

1) Other written languages existed and stories/epic were written in them anciently.
2) There is no evidence that written Hebrew existed in such ancient times, biblical or otherwise.
3) IF written versions of the biblical stories existed before Hebrew existed, then they must have been written in another language.


In any case, I like some of the points you made and I like the logical, rational thoughts you offer rosends.

I will have to get to some of your other points later.


Clear
εινεδρφυω

 

[rosends]

However, I am not talking about simply using a different alphabet, but using a different language.

This is a difference then, as I am only talking about the use of shaped letters loaned from other languages to codify a preexisting oral language.

Thus there is no argument that Assyrian and Hebrew were ever the same, just that Hebrew, when transitioning from a spoken language to a written one, might have done so by adopting the written forms of letters used in Assyrian.

My point was that other written languages existed at a time when no evidence of written Hebrew existed.
IF the biblical stories were written down in this time before Hebrew existed, then the stories had to be written in a different, existing language.

But there are plenty of cultures whose national myths were transmitted orally. Many cultures never really developed written languages at all. IIRC, some native American cultures had no written languages but this does not mean that their myths existed in another language before they were transcribed phonetically into the letters of any other language, just that their language was an oral one.

We can call it “Masoretic Hebrew” of “medieval Hebrew” if you want.

The two time periods referenced here are very different.

If anyone can show that the oldest writing in existence is actually Hebrew with different letters, but the same grammar and lexicon and syntax and semantics, etc, then Hebrew has to be the oldest written language.

I'm not sure that anyone is claiming that Hebrew is the oldest written language. The question related to "what did Adam speak" not "what did Adam write."

For now, there is no data supporting the claim that written Hebrew was the written language used by Abraham, etc.

Nor do we have any record that Abraham wrote anything at all. But he spoke to others.

The main principles are :

1) Other written languages existed and stories/epic were written in them anciently.
2) There is no evidence that written Hebrew existed in such ancient times, biblical or otherwise.
3) IF written versions of the biblical stories existed before Hebrew existed, then they must have been written in another language.

This all hinges on some very big "ifs". "If the bible wasn't originally written in Hebrew" relies on the fact that we don't have a copy and we would then be deciding what didn't exist simply because we don't have any of it. If, for example, written versions did exist in Hebrew, but, over time (because they were committed to writing on parchment and not engraving in stone) disintegrated, then we are drawing an erroneous conclusion about their lack.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The following charts may help people, who were not able to view the videos I made on this topic, understand what I mean about how the original Jewish Christians (i.e. Jesus's 12 disciples, the 70 students the NT authors claimed he had and left him early on, and all of the Jews that the author of acts claimed became Christian) disappeared off the historical map and BIOLOGICALLY there are no evidence from history that their BIOLOGICIAL (meaning their children and grandchildren) descendents continued to be "identifiable" as being Jewish.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Continued from above this chart also helps.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Concerning the LXX, here is what scholars say about it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also, concerning the LXX this may help.

 

[rosends]

Some other info, but to accept it means one has to give credence to the traditional Jewish approaches, and, in for a penny...
Discuss the Daf - Megilah

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, because it was stuffed to the brim with polemics by later editors, redactors and translators.

Proof?

 

[BilliardsBall]

"In the 3rd century CE Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy, and a number of other scholars consulted the Hebrew texts in order to make the Septuagint more accurate.

The text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (S), both dating from the 4th century CE, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts. The first printed copy of the Septuagint was in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–22)."

Septuagint | biblical literature | Britannica

We don't have 'The Septuagint' anymore. It's a purely Christian work now.

Proof? Do you have the original for a comparison?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Also, so now I know that when you write things in English they are not directed at me and instead for others/the readers. So, I should ignore everything you write in English, right?

You write to me in English. Should I ignore you because you aren't using Hebrew?

You've made a tu quoque fallacy with your post (pardon the Latin).

 

[BilliardsBall]

Clear asked : “IF ORIGINAL OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS WERE NOT WRITTEN IN HEBREW, WHY THE INSISTENCE TO RELY ON A TRANSLATION IN HEBREW?”

@BilliardsBall said : “They don't want to deal with the Greek of the Septuagint, which predates Jesus by centuries and is utterly FILLED with evidence that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.”

@Harel13 replied to Billiardsball saying : “Yes, because it was stuffed to the brim with polemics by later editors, redactors and translators.



Hi Billiardsball;

My tentative view is that we all (myself included) view religious data through our own personal biases and both see and want to see things that confirm our bias and that disprove any conflicting viewpoints. This is the way I see the O.P. and some of the comments (both by Christians and by Jews and by all other religionists – by all of us)


While I am comfortable with differing views on religion, I am uncomfortable with the presentation of data that represents a criticism of the views of another religion but which one’s own religious views cannot survive. For example, the criticisms which the O.P. applied to the Christian texts can be applied to the Jewish texts as well. (but the O.P. avoids this fairness).

As another example, Harel13 criticises the Jewish Septuagint as affected by editors, redactors and translators while it is well knowns that the Jewish Masoretic was also affected by editors, redactors and translators.

The Masoretes who created the Masoretic Bible themselves left an enormous amount of descriptive material which tells us that they changed the biblical text and describes their motives for doing so (which motives were not evil).

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was both illuminating and uncomfortable for Jews (and uncomfortable to Christians for different reasons) because they demonstrate in specific cases the redactions and losses to the Masoretic text which itself has become corrupted.

This is not to say the Septuagint is superior, (because it also may have a presumably similar number of corruptions), but I am saying that the claim that the Masoretic is somehow superior to the earlier versions, or that it represents the version of Text that existed from the beginning, or that it is in the language of Adam, are claims that are meant to reassure those who believe such claims but that they are incoherent historically and are not credible.

I think that BOTH the various Christians AND the various modern religious that call themselves Judaism should still be very grateful for the texts that they have.



Clear

The Scrolls aren't uncomfortable for Jews, they are prominently trumpeted in many areas of Israel's politics and culture.

The Scrolls are a wonder, not uncomfortable for Christians, they should without a doubt Messianic expectations and Messianic prophecy centuries before Jesus the Messiah. On one trip to Israel, I met a Messianic archaeologist who was working on Isaiah translation and study who was astounded that the Masoretic was authenticated firmly--after which he immediately converted, having the prophecies made more sure for his mind and heart.

 

[37818]

Greetings.

In order to understand how that mitzvah was to be performed you would have to start reading at 27:2. If you look at the mitzvah it was only required to be done when that generation entered into the land of Canaan. This mitzvah was done during the time when Yehoshua bin-Nun led the nation into the land of Canaan. It is mentioned in Sefer Yehoshua bin-Nun 9:30 - 35 or in English you say that in Joshua 9:23 - 35 it was done and only required to be done once for that generation.

There is a good book called Sepher HaMitzvoth by Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon (Rambam) where he explaines the methodology we Jews received from Moses to know which mitzvoth are required for all gnerations and which ones were only for the specific generations of the wilderness and the one that entered into the land of Canaan.

I hope that helps.

That would seem to explain a Jewish take on the matter.
A Christian view is Deuteronomy 27:26 refers to the whole law. Deuteronomy 27:2-3, Joshua 4:1-7, Joshua 8:32-34. Which would include what was commaned for the Tabernacle, therefore commanded to do in the Temple which has not been done sinse 70 CE.

 

[dybmh]

This is where I'm confused.

Christian theology teaches that there is an imposter, who can appear as an angel of light, who has full authority to perform miracles and signs on earth, with the intention to deceive. If this is true, doesn't a person need to be highly skeptical of any Jesus story that they hear? I would expect Christians to be more cautious with their own scripture because their theology includes an adversary with motive and opportunity to contaminate the story with narrative from the imposter.

 

[Clear]

Billiardsball said : "The Scrolls aren't uncomfortable for Jews, they are prominently trumpeted in many areas of Israel's politics and culture.
The Scrolls are a wonder, not uncomfortable for Christians, they should without a doubt Messianic expectations and Messianic prophecy centuries before Jesus the Messiah. On one trip to Israel, I met a Messianic archaeologist who was working on Isaiah translation and study who was astounded that the Masoretic was authenticated firmly--after which he immediately converted, having the prophecies made more sure for his mind and heart." Post #176

Hi @BilliardsBall

I only have a second to comment as I am very busy at work today but I should have given more context to my comment..
Shortly after their discovery, the Dead Sea Scrolls were hailed as the most significant religious discovery of that generation. They contained Old Testament texts that were 900 years older than the oldest texts we had before and they allowed us to correct many errors in current bibles (mostly lacunae).

However, as they started to be translated, the Jewish scholars noted the many Christian-like principles in the texts (lead by a group of 12, presided over by 3, a ritual washing akin to baptism, a eucharistic like sacred meal, etc.), then they cooled to the texts. (One Jewish scholar, Zeichner claimed they were Christian...).

Many Christians, who should have welcomed the texts, also cooled to them since the texts described a christianity like religion that existed BEFORE Jesus (which was disorienting to them). The restorationist Christians loved the texts since the texts were supportive of their position.

The texts are WONDERFUL and amazing in their description of an early Judaism and their doctrines and beliefs.


Good journey to you Billiardsball, I simply don't have time to comment more til later.

Clear
τωειτωσεω

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is where I'm confused.

Christian theology teaches that there is an imposter, who can appear as an angel of light, who has full authority to perform miracles and signs on earth, with the intention to deceive. If this is true, doesn't a person need to be highly skeptical of any Jesus story that they hear? I would expect Christians to be more cautious with their own scripture because their theology includes an adversary with motive and opportunity to contaminate the story with narrative from the imposter.

Hi dybmh,
What you have overlooked is the fact that the first Christians were Jews, people who were well aware of the need to guard the scriptures. Furthermore, 'born again' Christians [as ALL should be - John 3:7] have another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who is able to discern spirits. This means that they are given the ability to distinguish between the good and the evil.

The day will come when all Israel will know the baptism in the Holy Spirit. At the moment, only Christians know God through the indwelling Spirit.

Jeremiah 31:31-33. [JPS] 'See, a time is coming - declares the LORD - when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they broke, though I espoused them - declares the LORD. But such is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after these days - declares the LORD: I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, "Heed the LORD"; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me - declares the LORD.'

Ezekiel 11:17-21 [JPS]. 'Yet say: Thus said the LORD GOD: I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the Land of Israel. And they shall return there, and do away with all its detestable things and all its abominations. I will give them one heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove the heart of stone from their bodies and give them a heart of flesh, that they may follow My laws and faithfully observe My rules. Then they shall be My people and I will be their God. But as for them whose heart is set upon their detestable things and their abominations, I will repay them for their conduct - declares the Lord GOD.'