rosends
Well-Known Member
I spend way too much time strolling through a variety of online platforms, trying to help people understand about my religion. I don’t try to convince, or persuade, nor do I denigrate other religions (unless a person fires the first shot, then it is game on). But I keep seeing the same claims over and over so I figured to make a single document which addresses a collection of the fanciful beliefs that I run into as a resource for the future. These are just some general high points.
So first, it is incredibly arrogant for someone who is not Jewish to say, “you Jews don’t understand the texts that were given to you.” Even more arrogant is to say, “others understand BETTER than you.” I sometimes wonder if it would make sense for a Russian to go to an American lawyer and say “Russians understand American law better than Americans even though we have only read it in translation.” While there might be Americans who are not fluent in the law, I don’t believe that there is a Russian expert who is more informed than an American expert, and that studying something in translation and outside of the context in which it was created (cultural, historical, linguistic etc) cannot lead one to know more than the expert studying it from within.
So when it comes to verses, Christians often say, “Jesus fulfilled these messianic prophecies” even though, according to Judaism those verses are NOT messianic prophecies! But since “they” know Jewish texts better, they say, “yes they are.”
I also hear “the text says…” but that claim is mired in 2 problems:
Context is also key. Looking at a verse or a word in isolation isn’t helpful. There is a verse which says that atonement comes via blood. But that’s not all it says. It says “don’t eat blood” first and then explains because “blood is what brings atonement.” But it is then only speaking of cases where atonement is tied to an animal sacrifice. It does not say that atonement can ONLY be brought by blood. The atonement is a quality of the blood but blood is not a quality of atonement. In another verse, the text speaks of a “new covenant” but the text also is specific about what the content will be, using the word “Torah” which means that the content of a covenant is the same Torah as the earlier covenant. And the text explains that what makes this version unlike the earlier one is how it is presented and internalized, but the terms of it are the same. If one ignores the context of the verse, one will just see “new” and assume it means “completely different.” But what sense would it make for someone to look at the First Amendment and say “the text reads ‘congress shall make no law’ so congress can’t make any laws.”
I recently had a discussion with someone who discounted the “Jewish” understanding of a verse because he couldn’t understand how what it prophesied is possible. Since he decided that it foretold something he couldn’t comprehend, he decided it must be wrong.
Next up, I think it is important for people to acknowledge that many of the claims made by particular non-Jews are matters of interpretation. This is really important – a person writes “the Jewish texts speak about my prophet/messiah…” I ask “show me where your prophet is mentioned.” The person’s response is to cite a variety of verses. “But,” I counter, “is your prophet named there?” The answer can’t be “yes” so it is some flavor of “that’s a bad question – no other messianic aspirant is named so the verse isn’t talking about anyone else.” It isn’t a bad question; it just serves a different purpose. It points out that drawing the conclusion is a matter of that interpretation, one which is crafted through a pre-existing theological lens.
Islam responds differently, saying “our prophet IS named – just look at Song of Songs 5:16.” The problem with that is 3 fold:
A note on interpretation – have at it. Often, interpretation is driven by outside sensibilities and that’s great. But it is essential that a person understands that this becomes a function of that external content and not an intrinsic element in the text. Saying that the gospels explain the meaning of the Judaic text is fine as long as you remember that a Jew doesn’t care about the gospels. Christians have this same attitude towards the Oral Law, saying that they cede no authority to it, so it is not a valid way to explain text. Here’s where I see a difference – Muslims say the Koran continues the text. Christians say the gospels, and then the Mormons say the book of Mormon continues THAT. Judaism says that the oral law is contemporary and complementary to the text, not that it is a continuation of anything. But if you want to deny it and embrace your own extension then have a good time, as long as you can see that anyone’s parallel claim, using a different external text is just as valid as yours.
So first, it is incredibly arrogant for someone who is not Jewish to say, “you Jews don’t understand the texts that were given to you.” Even more arrogant is to say, “others understand BETTER than you.” I sometimes wonder if it would make sense for a Russian to go to an American lawyer and say “Russians understand American law better than Americans even though we have only read it in translation.” While there might be Americans who are not fluent in the law, I don’t believe that there is a Russian expert who is more informed than an American expert, and that studying something in translation and outside of the context in which it was created (cultural, historical, linguistic etc) cannot lead one to know more than the expert studying it from within.
So when it comes to verses, Christians often say, “Jesus fulfilled these messianic prophecies” even though, according to Judaism those verses are NOT messianic prophecies! But since “they” know Jewish texts better, they say, “yes they are.”
I also hear “the text says…” but that claim is mired in 2 problems:
- Translation
- Context
Context is also key. Looking at a verse or a word in isolation isn’t helpful. There is a verse which says that atonement comes via blood. But that’s not all it says. It says “don’t eat blood” first and then explains because “blood is what brings atonement.” But it is then only speaking of cases where atonement is tied to an animal sacrifice. It does not say that atonement can ONLY be brought by blood. The atonement is a quality of the blood but blood is not a quality of atonement. In another verse, the text speaks of a “new covenant” but the text also is specific about what the content will be, using the word “Torah” which means that the content of a covenant is the same Torah as the earlier covenant. And the text explains that what makes this version unlike the earlier one is how it is presented and internalized, but the terms of it are the same. If one ignores the context of the verse, one will just see “new” and assume it means “completely different.” But what sense would it make for someone to look at the First Amendment and say “the text reads ‘congress shall make no law’ so congress can’t make any laws.”
I recently had a discussion with someone who discounted the “Jewish” understanding of a verse because he couldn’t understand how what it prophesied is possible. Since he decided that it foretold something he couldn’t comprehend, he decided it must be wrong.
Next up, I think it is important for people to acknowledge that many of the claims made by particular non-Jews are matters of interpretation. This is really important – a person writes “the Jewish texts speak about my prophet/messiah…” I ask “show me where your prophet is mentioned.” The person’s response is to cite a variety of verses. “But,” I counter, “is your prophet named there?” The answer can’t be “yes” so it is some flavor of “that’s a bad question – no other messianic aspirant is named so the verse isn’t talking about anyone else.” It isn’t a bad question; it just serves a different purpose. It points out that drawing the conclusion is a matter of that interpretation, one which is crafted through a pre-existing theological lens.
Islam responds differently, saying “our prophet IS named – just look at Song of Songs 5:16.” The problem with that is 3 fold:
- What is written is a word, not a name
- Names often develop from words in the bible, but the mention of the source word doesn’t indicate a reference to a person with the derived name (and even if the textual content is PRECISELY the name, that doesn’t mean that the text refers to someone a thousand years later who has the same name)
- The surrounding content has no relevance to the claimed personage
A note on interpretation – have at it. Often, interpretation is driven by outside sensibilities and that’s great. But it is essential that a person understands that this becomes a function of that external content and not an intrinsic element in the text. Saying that the gospels explain the meaning of the Judaic text is fine as long as you remember that a Jew doesn’t care about the gospels. Christians have this same attitude towards the Oral Law, saying that they cede no authority to it, so it is not a valid way to explain text. Here’s where I see a difference – Muslims say the Koran continues the text. Christians say the gospels, and then the Mormons say the book of Mormon continues THAT. Judaism says that the oral law is contemporary and complementary to the text, not that it is a continuation of anything. But if you want to deny it and embrace your own extension then have a good time, as long as you can see that anyone’s parallel claim, using a different external text is just as valid as yours.
