Hi
@Harel13
Harel13 said : "Thus, you agree that characterizing the rumors as Jewish is irrelevant, because it casts a tone that makes it seem as though they are wrong simply because they are Jewish"
I called the rumors "Jewish" because a Jew referred me to a blog written by a Jew who tells us the rumors are Jewish. The rumors are not muslim rumors, they are not Christian rumors, and they are no Athiest rumors. They are Jewish rumors presented in an attempt to support a Jewish Claim. They are neither wrong nor right because they are Jewish.
Harel13 said : "As I said, your description of the rumors turns your view of them into ad hominems. I recommend not doing that, in order for people to take your criticism seriously. But your call, really.
An Ad Hominem, by definition is an
attack which is "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
My criticism was against the concept that a mere "rumor" and "lost books" could somehow serve as "investigation" and "verification" that a bible created in the medieval ages by a religious movement was inerrant and was the actual word of God to Moses.
I do not think my criticisms were “ad hominems”.
I criticized the authors admitted departure “
from the standard academic method” and instead simply assumes the text is correct unless one can prove it isn’t.
I criticized the approach to investigation where the author admits : “
In addition to this, we will also depart from academics in the following. We will assume that, absent any evidence to the contrary, the text that is agreed upon by the Jewish community - the textus receptus that is claimed to be the Masoretic Text - is correct” (G. Student)
I said “This is NOT a “verification” that the text is correct, but instead the author defines tradition as the criteria for acceptance. The paper admits there are many variations and mistakes in the Torah Scrolls but that no one can prove the Masoretic version is the incorrect one so it is to be accepted.
I am not trying to attack Jews themselves, but rather the claim that one can depart from proven standards and then simply assume something is correct if it can’t be proven to be incorrect. This approach doesn’t verify the text is correct nor that the text is the word of God.
I criticized the tendency of
CONFLATING “MYTHS” AND “TRADITIONS” WITH ACTUAL “HISTORY”
My example was when the author quoted :
“One can only imagine the awe the king felt when he held and read from the Torah written by Moshe on the last day of his life.”
My comment was “
Such assumptions are not historical, but they are merely tradition.”
It is not an ad hominem to criticize the assumption itself.
I criticized the concept of offering traditions instead of history and not the person : I said :
“Offering such incomplete and dubious traditions instead of actual history negates the blogs “information” as verification of your claim that any of these four versions OR the 5th created by the Rabbinic movement in the Medieval times are the words given to Moses and are correct..
The “history” presented here is full of holes and absent data and absent time periods and lacks facts and lacks a chain of events that creates credible history for a single text.”
I did not attack the author, but his methods and the logic and rationale of his conclusions.
When I said : ‘”the author says :
“What happened to this Torah of Moshe is unclear, although there are rumors of it resurfacing later in history. “”
Do YOU think “rumors of it resurfacing” are evidential and “verifying” of anything other than a tradition?
I simply think the “investigation” the author is engaging in is very, very flawed when one us using this type of approach to “verification”.
I criticized the illogical conclusions. For example, he tells us
“What happened to this Torah of Moshe is unclear…” and he tells us the books were lost but then he says the lost text “has played a special role in history.” Without telling the readers how lost books could play a further role in history. He says “Some claim that it remained until medieval times. “
When I said : “
Some claim it remained” is hardly history, or “investigation’ or “verification”. I am criticizing the logic and rationale of the “investigation” and “verification”, not so much the person engaging in this flawed process.
I did point out the various
IRRATIONAL AND ILLOGICAL TEXTUAL THEORIES
And I did point out the “very unusual, non-historical assumptions confirming his initial admission that he is departing from standard academics in his approach to his claims and simply clinging to tradition instead.”
In doing this, it is the departing from “standard academics” and the use of “tradition” and “rumors” that I think are the greatest problem to calling this an “investigation” or a “verification”.
He tells us that there are
MANY MISTAKES IN THE VARIOUS VERSIONS OF JEWISH TORAHS
but he then leaves out the process of how it is possible to create an inerrant text that is the actual words of God to Moses FROM errant and flawed texts.
The author tells us that
THE JEWISH HISTORICAL TEXTS THEMSELVES DISAGREE WITH THE BIBLE RABBINIC JUDAISM CREATED (MASORETIC)
The author points out that the Talmud and Midrash have many quotes from texts that are different than the Masoretic text. The blogger admits :
“Frequently, these commentators even discuss the merits of one version over another. This all is not very surprising because these texts represent what is, after all, an oral tradition. However, the contrast between the wide-ranging textual variants in the Talmud and the few variants in the bible is striking. “
The problem with such lapses in logic is that The author admits mistakes in the current Torah, he goes on to point out : "Who can say, the Rama implied, that the new Torah that presumably matches the
textus receptus is more correct than the current Torah being used?"
The author gets points for honesty, but loses points regarding the logic of how such admissions do not undermine the claims to “verification” rather than help such claims. The logic lacks. For example, if the original text is unknown,”how can the Jews prove and correct mistakes unless one knows what the original said? Thus, by default, the bible created by the Rabbinic movement / Masoretes can never be proven in error even when it is in error?”
My point was that, given this sort of information, the blog is not “verification” of the Masoretic version, but instead it is evidence that
The Masorah is not really "investigated" for actual conflicts in a authentic, rational way that can verify the text.
In all respect Harel13, tead this blog and tell me if I am wrong.
Even the blogger admits the narrowing of his investigation. For example, The author admits :
"We shall only address the Masora in terms of orthography - the letters in the Bible. There are early talmudic sources regarding a tradition on the letters of the bible."
How does a simple look at the letters in the texts examine other types of actual conflicts in text? This sort of avoidance of the real issues does NOT confirm the bible created by the rabbinic movement is the correct text and is the same text given to Moses.
The author uses bizarre statements to try to create and “verify” a religious text. He says :
“If we use the majority rule to resolve the differences within the Masora and among the reliable codices that we have, we can reconstruct the original Bible and the original Masora.
To say, in essence, that “most of the extant versions say this” is somehow the way to determine what Moses was given and what is correct and true is absolutely bizarre. It does nothing to confirm and verify the resulting new version of the text which is created by that rule of majority.
Using this sort of data as representative of “investigation” and “verification” that a biblical text created by a religious movement in the medieval ages is both inerrant (correct) and is the actual words of God to Moses is completely inadequate to support the claim of valid “investigation” and “verification” of such a theoretical text.
My intent is NOT to simply be argumentative or to offend.
I think the modern Jews, Christians, Muslims and historians owe a great deal to the early Jewish historians who collated and kept these records for our benefit.
However, I think the criticisms of this bloggers presentation was accurate and the blog does not represent a thorough "investigation" and certainly doesn't confirm the Masoretic is inerrant nor that it is the actual words of God to Moses.
You can certainly take a look at this blog and we can discuss it if you think any of my points were inaccurate.
In any case, I hope your spiritual journey in life is wonderful and insightful.
Clear
σιφιδρειω
