Why do those who defend the Talmud not defend the OT?

[Radrook]

I have noticed that the ones who vehemently protest the slightest misrepresentation of the Talmud are quite content to permit gross misrepresentations the OT including the Pentateuch.


Is it that you consider remaining silent for the Talmud a serious sin while remaining silent for the Pentateuch and the rest of the OT as OK?

Just wondering and trying to understand.

BTW
I know that some might consider attacking Christianity as defending the OT. But in that case, if indeed the purpose is to defend the OT, then why are the attacks of the OT by atheists
and the so-called higher critics ignored by these same people? Weird!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What on Earth are you babbling about? :confused:

[quixotecoyote]

His Christian-persecution-complex is acting up again.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Which people attack the Tanakh?

I've seen plenty attack certain interpretations of it (particularly certain types of literalist interpretations), but who attacks the work as a whole?

The same is true of the New Testament -- who attacks it? That you perceive certain interpretations as an attack is certainly true; that is why some have difficulty conversing with you, as you seem to take offered literary interpretations (often offered as stimuli for conversation) personally.

The Talmud consists of discussion of oral law and interpretation of the Tanakh from a variety of perspectives. I think the reason people are less inclined to discuss it -- that is the real issue, not attack -- is because it does not purport to be the unabashed word of truth in anyone's interpretive scheme. Rather, it is considered a reflection and discussion inviting further reflection and discussion. Plus, most people in this culture, being of Christian background, haven't read much of it. I've read some, but nowhere near it's totality.

There simply are not that many rabid rabbinic Jews on this forum. We also don't discuss the Bhagavad Gita or the Annalects of Confucius for the same reason -- they simply are not part of our cultural heritage to the same degree.

[triadboy]

The people who would defend the Talmud - and by 'people' I assume you mean Jews - don't care whether you become a Jew or not. They are not eat up with the notion that someone, somewhere doesn't believe as they do.

The Jews do not see all of their writings as historical fact. Some are stories. The OT is an Xian tradition - not a Jewish one. Why would they defend it?

[Doctor Evil]

I wonder what you mean by slight misrepresentation of the Talmud?

I have seen a few threads here which were related to the Talmud. They always involved gross misrepresentations, which were systematically skewed to make Jews appear to be evil. (I am sorry, but this is the correct word to use here.) For instance, there were claims that the Talmud allows Jews to cheat, lie so forth. In fact,the subject of these threads was bigotry rather than questions of ancient Jewish laws and customs.

My impression is that this forum has more non-believers than believers (myself included). It is only natural that we care more for religious claims which relate to social issues, then for claims which are more abstract.

[Darat]

I have noticed that the ones who vehemently protest the slightest misrepresentation of the Talmud are quite content to permit gross misrepresentations the OT including the Pentateuch.

...snip...

Er who and when? And what does this have to do with the subject of the "Religion and Philosophy" sections? Sounds like a Forum Community thread to me?

[dudalb]

The people who would defend the Talmud - and by 'people' I assume you mean Jews - don't care whether you become a Jew or not. They are not eat up with the notion that someone, somewhere doesn't believe as they do.

The Jews do not see all of their writings as historical fact. Some are stories. The OT is an Xian tradition - not a Jewish one. Why would they defend it?



Uh, wrongo.
The OT is very much a Jewish Tradition....in face, The Talmud is basicallly a commentary on the laws of the Old Testament.

[Radrook]

Which people attack the Tanakh?

I've seen plenty attack certain interpretations of it (particularly certain types of literalist interpretations), but who attacks the work as a whole?

Attacking a piecemeal isn't attacking the work as a whole? The issue is why is there an immediate response to these misinterpretations but not to the ones io the OT. You comment doesn't address thos but devioteas to only God knows where.

The same is true of the New Testament -- who attacks it? That you perceive certain interpretations as an attack is certainly true; that is why some have difficulty conversing with you,

The ones that do I have found are usually those who can't hold a conversation without
descending into ad hominem or straw man diatribes. Believe me, from my perspective their commentary isn't missed.


as you seem to take offered literary interpretations (often offered as stimuli for conversation) personally.

That I take it personally is your quaint perception of my rebuttals. I guess if I agreed
and said nothing or chuckled along with you then I wouldn't be taking it personally. But
that's wishful thinking I suppose.




The Talmud consists of discussion of oral law and interpretation of the Tanakh from a variety of perspectives. I think the reason people are less inclined to discuss it -- that is the real issue, not attack -- is because it does not purport to be the unabashed word of truth in anyone's interpretive scheme. Rather, it is considered a reflection and discussion inviting further reflection and discussion. Plus, most people in this culture, being of Christian background, haven't read much of it. I've read some, but nowhere near it's totality.

[quote]There simply are not that many rabid rabbinic Jews on this forum.

I never said they were nor do I perceive those who defend the Torah or explain it when there is some misunderstanding as being rabid. Curiously you do. Why?


We also don't discuss the Bhagavad Gita or the Annalects of Confucius for the same reason -- they simply are not part of our cultural heritage to the same degree.

So the OT isn't part of the Jewish cultural heritage? Really? Could have fooled me.

In any case, the problem seems to stem from the fact that you have your own convenient definition of what does and doesn't constitute an attack.

Dictionary Definition

http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geulk_QfJIpVQAqDtrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=11nv20kkp/EXP=1223922367/**http%3a//www.answers.com/topic/attack[

As you can see, if you bothered to look it up. Negative criticism comes under the attack label. But of course just because the writers are called boldfaced liars and the text accused of being riddled with errors doesn't constitute negative criticism in your book. Therefore it isn't an er, attack. Which of course is HM.

BTW


Bye!

[Skeptic]

The reason is simple.

Since the Talmud is sacred only to the Jews, and not to Christians or Muslims, attacks on the Talmud specifically had been used as an excuse to persecute the Jews in (especially) Christian and (also) Muslim lands for over a millenium.

Attacks on the OT, on the other hand, had usually come from atheists or other progressives (using the world in the original sense) -- and usually were not aimed at Jews as such, or used as an excuse to persecute the Jews.

For this reason, someone who deliberately misrepresents the Talmud is, more likely than not, simply using the Talmud as an excuse to attack Jews as such.

This is not to say all criticism of the Talmud is antisemitic, but there is an easily spotted difference between *criticism* of the Talmud and *misrepresenting* the Talmud. E.g., "the Talmud treats women unfairly, see... " is one thing. The (false) claim "The Talmud allows sex with three year olds girls!" something else entirely.

[Radrook]

The reason is simple.

Since the Talmud is sacred only to the Jews, and not to Christians or Muslims, attacks on the Talmud specifically had been used as an excuse to persecute the Jews in (especially) Christian and (also) Muslim lands for over a millenium.

Attacks on the OT, on the other hand, had usually come from atheists or other progressives (using the world in the original sense) -- and usually were not aimed at Jews as such, or used as an excuse to persecute the Jews.

For this reason, someone who deliberately misrepresents the Talmud is, more likely than not, simply using the Talmud as an excuse to attack Jews as such.

This is not to say all criticism of the Talmud is antisemitic, but there is an easily spotted difference between *criticism* of the Talmud and *misrepresenting* the Talmud. E.g., "the Talmud treats women unfairly, see... " is one thing. The (false) claim "The Talmud allows sex with three year olds girls!" something else entirely.

Excellent answer! Thanx for clearing that up.

[triadboy]

Uh, wrongo.
The OT is very much a Jewish Tradition....in face, The Talmud is basicallly a commentary on the laws of the Old Testament.

Are you saying the Jews refer to it as The Old Testament?!

[LibraryLady]

I do when I'm talking to non-Jews, just to be clear about what I'm discussing; I also refer to it as the Hebrew Testament.

Otherwise I just call it the Bible.

[Cavemonster]

In the context of this forum, attacks on the Talmud have been arguments that-
"Lol! Jews rape babies! Their sacred document tells them to!"

Attacks on the OT have been
"This document is internally inconsistent and there is no proof of it's veracity"

While both can be considered "attacks" I find it hard to believe that the difference is not clear.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Attacking a piecemeal isn't attacking the work as a whole? The issue is why is there an immediate response to these misinterpretations but not to the ones io the OT. You comment doesn't address thos but devioteas to only God knows where.

Radrook, I really don't want to have to go down this road again, but once again, you obviously mistake my purpose and what I have written.

What I said was that few to no one attacks the works. What they generally attack are particular interpretations of the work. What you see as attacks on the Old Testament are not attacks on the Old Testament as a piece of literature, but attacks on literalist interpretations of it. The Talmud does not suffer from the same fate because it does not concern generally literalist interpretation. It is a discussion of what the oral law and the Tanakh mean.

As to why there is "an immediate response to these misinterpretations.....", I have no idea what you are talking about. I can offer one reason why you might perceive a particular immediate response to your recent thread on the Talmud -- it's because the interpretation offered suggested anti-semitism. That is a hot button topic. That other people do not share your particular interpretation of the Old Testament (or the New Testament) is not an attack on them, but simply a different interpretation.


The ones that do I have found are usually those who can't hold a conversation without
descending into ad hominem or straw man diatribes. Believe me, from my perspective their commentary isn't missed.


That may be true, but also consider that you may be reading into posts something that is not really there. Could that be possible? We lack the nonverbal signals that are a huge part of normal conversation in this medium. It is important not to overinterpret the medium as contributing to the negative comment.

Now, it is definitely the case that some people have been very rude to you (it works both way as you have fully admitted). If you perceive rudeness on my part then I apologize because I don't mean it that way. I have tried to communicate to you my frustration with your misinterpretation of what I have been trying to tell you (WTF was intended to demonstrate that frustration and nothing else in one of our previous exchanges), because based on your replies to me I have no sense that you really 'get' what I am trying to say.


That I take it personally is your quaint perception of my rebuttals. I guess if I agreed
and said nothing or chuckled along with you then I wouldn't be taking it personally. But
that's wishful thinking I suppose.

No, not wishful thinking, but rather an interpretive attempt. I specifically phrased that as "seem to.." if you noticed, and I did so for a very particular purpose -- to give you the opportunity to respond as you did or to respond in a different manner.

I have never asked that you agree with me. I have offered arguments with evidentiary support. It is up to you what you do with those arguments.

If you don't take it personally, then that is much better. You'll have to excuse my perception -- it is based on the way you seemed to flail about in that previous thead, I'm afraid. I have no interest in affecting your faith (I say this not because I think I have but because you specifically said that my and others' attempts were to seed doubt, implying that it could) -- that is why I disengaged from that conversation. The evidence you provided for John as the author of his gospel is, in fact, weak. I was a bit shocked that it took so long for you to get to Ireneas and Polycarp, but they are one of the reasons why I think it so unikely that John was the author of that gospel, especially if you look at the name of Ireneas' primary work and the timeline involved (but this is a topic for another thread).



I never said they were nor do I perceive those who defend the Torah or explain it when there is some misunderstanding as being rabid. Curiously you do. Why?

Um, what? I don't perceive anyone here as being rabid -- I mentioned rabid rabbinic scholars as a rhetorical flourish to illustrate the point (notice the alliteration). What is your problem here? Do you have some personal thing with me? Because I can't make sense of where your comments come from -- they seem to originate in some alternate universe that doesn't concern anything that I actually said.


So the OT isn't part of the Jewish cultural heritage? Really? Could have fooled me.

In any case, the problem seems to stem from the fact that you have your own convenient definition of what does and doesn't constitute an attack.

What?

What in the world does this mean? I explained to you in the first response that the attack is against particular interpretations, but you phrased it as an attack against the work. People attack interpretations all the time. That is very different from casting aspersions at a particular work as a whole.

As to the OT not being a part of Jewish cultural heritage, I have no idea what you are referring to here. Can someone please explain this to me?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Excellent answer! Thanx for clearing that up.

Oh goody. Now will you post no more on this topic? :jaw-dropp

[triadboy]

I do when I'm talking to non-Jews, just to be clear about what I'm discussing; I also refer to it as the Hebrew Testament.

Otherwise I just call it the Bible.

Isn't the Tanakh arranged differently than the OT? (Tanakh - Law, Prophets, Writings) The OT is forced into a chronological scheme so that Malachi (the last book of the OT) foretells the appearance of "Elijah" in the form of John the Baptist in Mark (NT).

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD

So a bridge from the OT to the NT is created by xians.

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

That's why I say the OT is an xian creation.

[Lord Emsworth]

What might look like an attack from one point of view might look like a defense from another point of view. To wit, people who, for example, point out that the first two chapters of Genesis contain two different creation stories are not attacking the OT, they are defending it from inerrantists'/literalists' misconceptions and butcherings.

[Radrook]

What might look like an attack from one point of view might look like a defense from another point of view. To wit, people who, for example, point out that the first two chapters of Genesis contain two different creation stories are not attacking the OT, they are defending it from inerrantists'/literalists' misconceptions and butcherings.

That's the same way I feel about evolution. I'm not attacking it when I say that it sounds like a mother goose fable which constitites sheer unadulterateed BS. I am merely defending it from those who are trying to depict it as more than it really is.

[Lord Emsworth]

I think you got the point.

[Lord Emsworth]

Sorry, coudn't resist. 1000th post!

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

That's the same way I feel about evolution. I'm not attacking it when I say that it sounds like a mother goose fable which constitites sheer unadulterateed BS. I am merely defending it from those who are trying to depict it as more than it really is.

Ummm...actually it does sound like you're trying to attack it. I can only hope you're being sarcastic.

[Foster Zygote]

His Christian-persecution-complex is acting up again.

Crucifying oneself is hard work. He's been trying to get that last nail in for some time now.

[Radrook]

Malachi is placed last not only by the Christians but the Jews themselves traditionally considered him the last prophet. Christians merely were merely following the Jewish opinion.

excerpt

Malachi provides an important glimpse of life in Jerusalem in the first half of the fifth century b.c. The rebuilding of the Temple had not occasioned the kind of good life Haggai had predicted. As individuals lapsed in their performance of religious obligations the prophet exhorts people back to their moral stance by asking for true ritual obedience and abstinence from mixed marriages. The hopeful ending enables all to anticipate better times. Jewish tradition numbers Malachi the last of the Prophets and a member of the Great Synagogue.http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/mal.htm [/b]

[Henners]

That's the same way I feel about evolution. I'm not attacking it when I say that it sounds like a mother goose fable which constitites sheer unadulterateed BS. I am merely defending it from those who are trying to depict it as more than it really is.


So much for moral integrity.

[tomwaits]

Isn't the Tanakh arranged differently than the OT? (Tanakh - Law, Prophets, Writings) The OT is forced into a chronological scheme so that Malachi (the last book of the OT) foretells the appearance of "Elijah" in the form of John the Baptist in Mark (NT).


It depends on what version of the Christian Bible you are looking at. Not all Christians use the same books in the OT, let alone the same order.

[Foster Zygote]

That's the same way I feel about evolution. I'm not attacking it when I say that it sounds like a mother goose fable which constitites sheer unadulterateed BS. [b]I am merely defending it from those who are trying to depict it as more than it really is[/i].

The problem with your statement is that you have continually demonstrated an extremely poor grasp of the realities of evolutionary theory. This leads me toward the conclusion that your objections are visceral and not, as you claim, based on any actual understanding of the relevant science.

[Loss Leader]

I have noticed that the ones who vehemently protest the slightest misrepresentation of the Talmud are quite content to permit gross misrepresentations the OT including the Pentateuch.


As a person who has recently defended the Talmud on this board, how have I failed to defend the OT?

If you are referring to someone who is not me, please cite examples.

Otherwise, I have no idea what you could be talking about or whether such people exist at all.

[triadboy]

It depends on what version of the Christian Bible you are looking at. Not all Christians use the same books in the OT, let alone the same order.

I'm only speaking of the King James version - the one Jesus wrote coming over on the Mayflower.

[Elizabeth I]

I'm only speaking of the King James version - the one Jesus wrote coming over on the Mayflower.

Is that what he was doing? I thought he was playing Guitar Hero.