From: sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Religious question
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:54:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Not being Orthodox myself, don't take my words as being representative
of that community, but I do like Jewish history so some of my comments
may indeed have some limited relevance.

In article <1a+pbj+.solovay@netcom.com>, solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
> Well, no Orthodox Jews will be posting for another day or so, but as a
> once-Orthodox Jew & a would-be apikoros, I think I can answer. I'm
> sure people will correct my errors...
> 
> In article <1992Sep29.034520.21551@javelin.sim.es.com> JHIATT@130.187.170.178 (JOHN HIATT) writes:
> >  Do Orthodox Jews still practice animal/food sacrifice to the God of Abraham?
> >Why or why not?
> 
> The best answer would be "not at the moment". According to Orthodox
> (Talmudic) belief, sacrifices may only be performed on the site of
> Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem; this site is currently occupied by a
> pair of mosques, making it inaccessible. There are other technical
> problems; for example, we no longer know many of the details necessary
> for the sacrifices. For this reason, prevalent belief is that
> sacrifices cannot resume until the Messiah comes (which will bring
> about a restoration of prophecy). However, Orthodox belief is that the
> current situation is an aberration; sacrifices ought to be performed,
> and will be again (soon).

Strangely enough, Korban sacrifices for Pesach were actually
done in a few Sephardic communities, though not all.
In Iraq for example, a perfect goat was sacrificed, and
there were some groups like the Elephantine Jews who built
a rival Temple and sacrificed there.

> 
> >  Refering to the Old Testament in the christian bible, how do Jews refer to
> >this book?  (i.e. what name do they call the scriptures).
> 
> In Hebrew, it's known as the "Tanakh" (an acronym for "Torah, Nevi'im,
> Ketuvim", i.e. "Law, Prophets, and Writings"-- the three divisions of
> the Jewish Bible).
> 
> When speaking among themselves (in English), OJs (and Jews in general)
> will generally refer to the book as "Tanakh" or "the Bible". When
> speaking with non-Jews, Jews are more likely to call it "the Jewish
> Bible," (or "Hebrew Bible," etc.) to make clear that they mean just
> the Hebrew part, not the New Testament.
> 
> >  Are there any differences in the writings contained in the Old Testament and
> >the Jewish Scriptures?
> 
> There is no difference between the Protestant books of the "Old
> Testament" and the Jewish Bible, except the way the books are
> arranged. However, Jews find most Protestant *translations* of the
> Jewish Bible highly problematic. Jews tend to feel that the
> translations are fudged to make it look like the books prophecy Jesus.
> 
> The Catholic Old Testament is significantly different; it is based on
> the Septuagint, an early translation of the Jewish Bible into Greek.
> This translation contains several books which Jews do not think are
> normative (the Apocrypha, which comprises Jude, Macabbees,
> Eclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, a few others...). The text of
> certain books of the Bible is also significantly different (e.g. the
> Septuagint's Esther & Daniel have portions not found in the
> traditional Jewish versions).
> 

I believe this answer seriously underplays the differences.
Many of the translations are really off the Hebrew, and
the King James is also Septaguint based.  Jews in Islamic
countries had no need to "fake" the Bible for the Moslems
since they believe in so radically different a version as
communicated by Mohammed, that changing it wasn't needed.
Yet their Bibles are identical to the Ashkenazi Bible to
within 9 letters as another posting on s.c.j. here explains.

Is Macabbees included in the New Testament?

> >  What do Orthodox Jews think of:
> 
> The following are my personal opinions, but I've tried to make them
> general... caveat lector.
> 
> >-Jesus Christ
> 
> Who? Oh, you mean "Jesus of Nazareth". "Christ" is the Greek
> translation of the Hebrew "Mashiach", i.e. Messiah (lit. "annointed
> one"). Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, so they do not
> refer to him as Christ.
> 
> Jews don't think much of him one way or the other. Prevailing opinion
> is that he cribbed all his good lines from the Bible and the
> Pharisees. (Orthodox Jews, by the way, are big fans of the Pharisees,
> who were the authors of the first part of the Talmud, and thus the
> founders of post-biblical Judaism.)
> 
> Oh, by the way: Orthodox Jews do *not* believe the Messiah will be
> God. We had a God-King in Egypt, and we didn't like it; why would we
> grow our own? He'll be a king of the line of David, and he'll preside
> over a world of perfect peace and harmony, but he won't be God.
> According to Maimonides, the Messiah will eventually die, and his son
> will be Messiah in his place.
> 

Let me add that since Spinoza, secular critical study of the Bible
has become increasingly common.  As a result
even some Jewish scholars have been trying to use literary and linguistic
techniques on the New Testament to try to separate out the original
story from later enhancements.  The same technique is
frequently used to study the Tanakh (though not by religious scholars
by definition).  In addition, archaeological sources are being
integrated into the study. The Dead Sea scrolls are bringing
some new views to light, particularly the one scroll that sounds
like its about Jesus and John the Baptist (from Johns' viewpoint
making the Jesus figure look pretty bad I understand).  Only problem
is that it is dated 130 years too early.


> >-christians
> 
> Some of my best friends are Christians. I just wouldn't want my
> daughter to marry one.
> 
> There's some debate about whether Christianity is idolatrous. The
> problematic things are the trinity (which looks an awful lot like
> polytheism) and the belief that a human (Jesus) was God (worshipping
> humans is a classic form of idolatry). General consensus is that it's
> a sloppy form of monotheism, and thus a permissible religion for
> non-Jews, according to divine law. Islam, on the other hand, is
> clearly (and vehemently) monotheistic; there is a good argument to be
> made that, from a Jewish religious perspective, Islam is a better
> religion for non-Jews then Christianity.
> 

I think Maimonides (who was living under Islam at this point)
said nice things about Islam and bad things about Christianity.
Iconic christianity with statues of Jesus and Mary et al in
places of worship is considered idolatorous practice by religious Jews.
This would make it unacceptable for a Jew to worship in a Christian
house of worship, but one could worship in a Mosque so long as he
didn't credit Mohammed or Jesus with prophetic abilities.
One of the curious outcomes of this is that Christian marranism
is far more difficult for the Jew than Islamic marranism, both exist today.

I think Jews are far less concerned about how non-Jews worship
than non-Jews apparently are about Jews.

> >-John the Baptist (New Testament)
> 
> Well, Josephus mentions him (he never mentions Jesus, nor does any
> other contemporary text besides the Christian Bible). As near as
> anyone can figure, he was an okay dude. (There's no reason to believe
> he ever became a Christian, by the way. My personal opinion is that
> Christians put the John the Baptist stuff in the Gospels in an attempt
> to convince Jophn B's many followers to join up.)
> 

I recall that he is mentioned by Josephus, so probably really
did exist.  Not sure what the official rabbinic view is on him.

 
		Seth Rosenthal

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own not my employers'.