Christian Teachings about Judaism

Christian Alexander

How can I find the Christian teachings about Judaism in the biblical text using Logos? How would I formulate the search string? My pastor said this week, "The Bible does not give its readers any teachings about Judaism. This is due to the way in which readers read and interpret the text of the Bible. Anyone can prooftext the Bible enough to get a set ruling of understanding about Judaism. But Jews do not read the same texts as Christians do. Christians sometimes interpret Jewish works as more focused on the external interpersonal matters than matters of the heart, mind and soul. We need to look and see how the Bible treats Jews because they are not of the work of our belief." 

MJ. Smith

How can I find the Christian teachings about Judaism in the biblical text using Logos?

I can't make sense of this question because the consensus is that from the 1st-4th centuries Christianity was diverging from Judaism and becoming a separate religion. Therefore, during the period that the New Testament was written, everything written by Christians would be viewed as Jewish of a Christian sect.

Anyone can prooftext the Bible enough to get a set ruling of understanding about Judaism.

A misunderstanding you mean. I find it best to think of three Judaisms: 

1. The religion of the early Israelites
2. The second Temple religion
3. Rabbinic Judaism with "sidebars" of Karaite Judaism and Beta Israel

Judaism had to make a radical shift to become a religion not based upon a sacrificial system. To know anything about Judaism as it has existed contemporaneously with Christianity, one needs to be familiar with the canonical rabbinic literature. Rabbinic Judaism, the Judaism we know, evolved in exile after the destruction of the Temple i.e. outside the time period of the writing of the New Testament and therefore not discussed in the Christian Bible.

But Jews do not read the same texts as Christians do

Many of the texts are the same; the assumptions and methods are not. And the view of Oral Torah, which varies within Christianity, is a major unknown in this statement.

I know of several Jewish scholars who reject the idea that Christianity was once a Jewish sect ... they treat it more like a cult of personality much as we think of the Branch Davidians.

As for early Christian understanding of Judaism, I would look at:

• Justin Martyr - "Dialogue with Trypho"
• Irenaeus of Lyon - "Against Heresies"
• Tertullian "Against Marcion"
• Eusebius of Caesarea - "Ecclesiastical History"

For Christians emphasizing the role of Judaism in Christianity, I would look at:

• Clement of Alexandria - "Stromata" with Greek philosophy serving an intermediary role
• Origen of Alexandria - often tries to seek consensus with Jewish scholars
• Jerome - at times relied on Jewish interpretation to inform his translation
• Augustine of Hippo

Bonus for Jewish identification of "insurmountable" differences:

• Samson Raphael Hirsch - sees Christians as rejecting monotheism (Trinity) and Oral Torah
• Rabbi Yehuda Halevy - sees Christian personal and universal salvation as incompatible with the communal responsibility and national redemption
• Rabbi Menachem Kasher - sees Christian adoption of pagan practices and emphasis on afterlife as incompatible
  
• Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik - sees rejection of free will and emphasis on grace vs. human responsibility and moral choice as incompatible

Dave Hooton

We need to look and see how the Bible treats Jews because they are not of the work of our belief.

Bible Search Romans-Jude for Jew with [match all forms] to see how they should be/are treated in a Christian context (esp. in Galatians). Carefully regard the meaning of "Jew first".

Mark v

"The Bible does not give its readers any teachings about Judaism."

I am wondering if this was spoken in English by a native English speaker, or if we may have some translation problem here.  That could make a big difference.

But if this is what was said, and there isn't a translation problem, I find this to be a strange statement. To make sense of it, I would have to ask this pastor what he means by, "Judaism".  Without question the Bible is the authoritative, complete, and sole source of information about the Jewish faith as God gave it to the children of Israel.

So, if he's talking about what God gave to Israel, the statement is so wrong it can only be said to be completely senseless.  One would have to be shockingly ignorant of Scripture to say that.  Such a man would be completely unqualified to be a pastor.

But, if he is talking about modern Judaism, again, the statement is lacking any sense, because modern Judaism did not exist when the Bible was written.

If he's talking about the Judaism that existed at the time the New Testament was written, again, the statement is lacking any sense, because that is the authoritative source for such information.  There is not much there that is specific to Jews, of course, because that is not the purpose of the New Testament.  But to say there is none is simply not correct.  Of course, there is a LOT about how to treat all people, and the Jews are part of "all people."

Really, I find it very hard to understand what he was trying to say from what you have provided.

"We need to look and see how the Bible treats Jews because they are not of the work of our belief." 

If it was spoken exactly this way by a native English speaker, this statement is not only difficult to understand, it's troubling. 

1. It isn't good English, so it's hard to know what is meant, especially this part: "they are not of the work of our belief."   That doesn't really make sense grammatically, so almost anything can be read into it.
2. While allowing for the fact that it is open to misinterpretation, it seems to me to be expressing a justification for hating Jews.

I hope you will follow up with him to be sure you understand what he is saying.

As for what Scripture says about how we should treat the Jews, I suggest you might want to look at Romans 10:1 and following.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279646#Comment_1279646

Without question the Bible is the authoritative, complete, and sole source of information about the Jewish faith as God gave it to the children of Israel.

Only the Karaites reject the Oral Torah IIRC but I agree the statement makes no sense for the reasons you gave.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279638#Comment_1279638

Bible Search Romans-Jude for Jew with [match all forms] to see how they should be/are treated in a Christian context (esp. in Galatians). Carefully regard the meaning of "Jew first".

leads to food for thought

5.1. The Meaning and Use of Ἰουδαῖος and Ἕλλην

Scholarly interpretation of the noun Ἰουδαῖος has been quite problematic. There has been ongoing debate as to whether the term Ἰουδαῖος should be translated as ‘Jew’ in the sense of a religious identity or as ‘Judean’ in the sense of ethnic or territorial identity. Recent scholarly opinion is that the English translation of Ἰουδαῖος as Jew is an incorrect rendering and misrepresentation of the term as it is used in the New Testament. A few voices, however, dissent. Amy-Jill Levine, for instance, argues that the translation ‘Jew’ with ‘Judean’ in the New Testament leads to ‘a Judenrein (“Jew-Free”) text, a text purified of Jews. Complementing this erasure, scholars then proclaim that Jesus is neither Jew nor even Judean, but Galilean.’ As most scholars confirm the rendering ‘Judean’, they also assert that the concept is not easy to explain, since it was not clearly defined in antiquity and early Christianity. They argue instead that the term Ἰουδαῖος, translated as ‘Judean’, has different meanings. Ἰουδαῖος can be used in the context of proper name, cultural and ethnic-geographic identity, religious identity, indicator of status within the Jewish community, and pagan adherence to Judaism. Ἕλλην is used by Jews to refer to non-Jews. Here the term is used to construct a self-identity in a religious and ethnic sense to designate all who neither are born Jewish nor had become Jewish proselytes.
It can be said that the above discussion about the use of Ἰουδαῖος as either ‘Jew’ or ‘Judean’ has little to contribute to the question of the use of the pair Ἰουδαῖος and Ἕλλην in Galatians. One of the reasons is that much of the debate about the use of Ἰουδαῖος in the New Testament hinges on the problem revolving around the use of the expression in the gospels, especially the problem of the anti-Semitic tendencies found in Matthew and John. The second reason is that the group, or the communities, that made up the Ἰουδαῖος in the Matthean and Johannine Gospels are different from those that made up the Pauline communities. This said, we add that the type of Jews and Judaism that the writers of the Gospels of Matthew and John were opposing in their respective Gospels are different from the Jews and Judaism Paul is reacting to in his letters. Furthermore, assuming that the members of the Matthean and the Johannine community were Jews living within the ethnic boundaries of Palestine, then one could argue that Ἰουδαῖος is used in the Gospels of Matthew and John in a geographical sense (as well as religious), and that the supposed conflict in the passages is between Jews and Jewish Christians. On the contrary, Pauline audiences were Hellenistic Jews, that is, Jews living in the Diaspora. They are not necessarily from Palestine, but they share a Jewish identity with the rest of the Jews. In this second context, Ἰουδαῖος is used in a religious sense.
Proceeding from the above observation, a question arises: How does Paul use Ἰουδαῖος in Galatians? To answer this question, we first have to examine how Paul uses the term in the other letters, especially where Ἰουδαῖος occurs together with Ἕλλην. From the result of our study, we will proceed to show how Paul deploys the term Ἰουδαῖος and Ἕλλην in Galatians. We have few instances in Paul’s homolegoumena where Ἰουδαῖος is paired with Ἕλλην or with a related term like ἔθνος. The references are 1 Cor. 1:22–24; 12:13 and Rom. 3:9, 29 (cf. 11:17–32).
In 1 Cor. 1:22–24, Paul pairs Ἰουδαῖος with Ἕλλην in 1:22, Ἰουδαῖος with ἔθνος in 1:23, and Ἰουδαῖος with Ἕλλην in 1:24 to talk about the worthlessness of discord in the community of those who believe in Christ. The pairing of Ἰουδαῖος with Ἕλλην or other concepts related to the latter poses an important question, namely: What are the reasons for Paul’s uses of these pairs of opposites? There has been a long-standing debate about whether there was a Judaizing faction in Corinth. The implication is that if the answer is in the affirmative, then there is the possibility that there existed Jewish Christians in Corinth. Where there are no Jews, as Gordon Fee and a few others suggest, it means that Ἰουδαῖος with Ἕλλην is used in 1 Cor. 1:22–24, but not exclusively, for rhetorical purpose. Alternatively, it could be, as Fee observes, that in 1 Cor. 1:22–24 Ἰουδαῖος is universalized, as is Ἕλλην. What this means is that the terms represent the full stretch of humanity.
As we continue to deal with whether Ἰουδαῖος and Ἕλλην occur in 1 Cor. 1:22–24 with reference to the presupposed Corinthian audience, the tenets of Judaism or is a literary word to speak about the attitude and the perspective of the people, another aspect of concern is whether there is any difference between the use of Ἕλλην and ἔθνος in 1:22–24. James Scott and a few others have examined the use of Ἕλλην and ἔθνος in Pauline letters and noted that Paul is very inconsistent in his use of these terms. In their opinion, Paul uses the terms synonymously or associates each of them with multiple meanings. What this means is that Ἕλλην and ἔθνος can be used interchangeably in either a religious, ethnic, or rhetorical senses.
Given the fact that we have not studied 1 Cor. 1:22–24 in depth, we cannot claim with certainty the sense Ἰουδαῖος/Ἕλλην or Ἰουδαῖος/ἔθνος make in the context under debate. One thing is sure, in 1 Cor. 1:22–24 Paul is speaking to the Corinthian audience. Regardless of whether the terms are used rhetorically or carry religious overtones, the message of 1 Cor. 1:22–24 is addressing those who were causing division in the community, and this original audience would have found the statement clear. In that respect, the use of Ἰουδαῖος/Ἕλλην or Ἰουδαῖος/ἔθνος establishes the identity of the addressees, for in the use of the terms in question Paul is summoning the community to live in peace and avoid factions.
In 1 Cor. 12:13, the plural form of the pair Ἰουδαῖος/Ἕλλην occurs with an εἴτε … εἴτε construction, expressing the conditional sense of the message of 1 Cor. 12:13. Like in 1 Cor. 1:22–24, Paul is thinking along similar lines in 1 Cor. 12:13. The audience in 1 Cor. 1:22–24 are the same as those in 1 Cor. 12:13. If they were Jewish Christians in Corinth, the same is true for those believers to whom the message of 1 Cor. 12:13 was addressed.
What we have said of the use of the pair Ἰουδαῖος/Ἕλλην in 1 Cor. 1:22–24 resonates with the use of the term in Rom. 3:9, 29 (cf. 11:17–32). Although there are changes of context and theme, the use of the pair does not fall short of speaking about the audience. In the previous contexts, as in Rom. 3:9, 29, we do not negate that the words may have religious connotation. While there has been ongoing debate about whether Romans was addressed only to Jewish believers, Gentile believers, or both Jewish and Gentile believers, it is important to note that our understanding of who Paul’s addressees in the letter to the Romans were can help us sustain the view that Ἰουδαῖος and Ἕλλην as used in context are not concerned with geographic claims. As with the case of 1 Corinthians and Romans, Paul’s use of Ἰουδαῖος and Ἕλλην carries religious as well as ethnic connotations.
In Galatians, we also grapple with the question of whether or not the believing community had Jewish counterparts. So far, we have attested that the theological argument in Galatians was partly Paul’s response to the issues brought forward by his opponents. Behind the so-called opponents’ statement is the question of the identity of the opponents, and behind the question of the identity of the opponents is the question of the historical existence of these Jewish Christians. From Gal. 1:6–9; 4:10; and 6:12, we infer with some certainty that the Jewish Christian missionaries had visited the Galatians believers. It does not matter whether their presence is one that is short-lived or they stayed in Galatians for some time. The statements in Gal. 1:6–9; 4:10; and 6:12 do call attention to the fact that, first, there were Jewish Christians in Galatians at the time Paul was writing the letter. Second, these Jewish Christians are called Ἰουδαῖος from the point of view of their advocating circumcision and calendar observations. Third, when Paul was using the statements in Gal. 3:28a, the presence of both the Jewish Christians and the core tenet of Judaism were acknowledged.
While the designation Ἕλλην is used in the context of 3:28a to speak of the Gentile believers, it is quite doubtful that the Gentile believers in Galatia were Greeks in the strict sense of the word. The debate that Galatians was addressed to those who inhabited the original Galatian territory (North Galatia), or those who lived in the Phrygian Galatia and Lycaonian Galatia (South Galatia), could help establish the assumption that Ἕλλην in 3:28 is not used in the geographical sense. Like the use of Ἰουδαῖος, Paul’s reference to Ἕλλην could best be taken in an ethnic and religious senses. Ethnically, it refers to those who do not identify themselves as physical descendants of Abraham and Sarah (cf. the use the Abraham narrative in 3:14–29 and the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21–31). Religiously, it refers to those who do not adhere to the Jewish Law and observe certain Jewish rituals, such as circumcision (3:1–5, 27; 4:17; 5:2) and calendar observance (4:10). It is probably the idea behind what he says in Gal. 2:3 that prompted him to use Ἕλλην in 3:28a in the context of cultural and religious identities. It could also be that Paul’s Jewish background influenced him here.

David Paul

Briefly, Judaism was invented after the experience of the Babylonian captivity. It has very little to do with, or in common with, the religion promoted in the Hebrew scriptures. Tanakh: mentions the rabbis precisely ZERO times. Judaism is RABBINIC religion. The fundamental driving principle of Judaism is that ':Elohhiym's authority over the religion ended when the last prophet spoke (Malachi). The rabbis now have all authority to interpret the Bible. In the narrative fiction promoted through the parable of the oven, the rabbis have collectively rejected their need to "hear a voice from heaven" and God's response to this condition is (according to the conclusion of the parable narrative) to merely laugh and admit "my children have defeated me". That is the fundamental, core notion of Judaism. The "Biblical" warrant for this absurdist position is an absurdist warrant, based in the same twisted parable. According to the collective rabbis, the collective rabbis "received" the authority to reject the "heavenly voice" (which had firmly and explicitly supported the position held by a lone rabbi) based on the supposed quotation of "scripture" that said "follow after the rabhbiym (i.e. rabbis, meaning multitude/majority/great ones)". Where is this phrase found? In Exo. 23:2 NASB95, which says "DO NOT 'follow the rabhbiym (multitude/majority/great ones)' to perform evil" nor "answer in a dispute" ("a dispute" being exactly what the parable of the oven is) "to pervert" justice by "turning aside according to the rabhbiym". In other words, according to the rabbis, the scriptural "bound" that gives them authority (i.e. "follow the majority rabbis") is the exact verse that says "do not follow the majority rabbis", since doing this would be to "perform evil" and "pervert" justice. In the simplest terms, rabbinic authority to "do R" is the same Bible verse that says "DON'T do R".

Yeishuua` rejects this anti-biblical interpretational penchant well in advance when He says the (proto-rabbinical) Pharisees preferred their own "traditions" (aka JUDAISM) over the "word" and "commandment of God". (Mk. 7:3, 5, 8, 9,13 NASB95).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279655#Comment_1279655

The fundamental driving principle of Judaism is that ':Elohhiym's authority over the religion ended when the last prophet spoke (Malachi).

Interesting ... can you provide a source for this line of argument -- it is new to me. I've normally seen an argument along the lines of the Tanakh speaks of two offices kohen and navi. With the destruction of the 2nd Temple, the kohen sacrificial duties were obsolete (in the sense of not being able to be fulfilled). The position over time came to be referred to as rabbi. Depending upon the thread of Judaism that my friends identify with, the role of navi receives different answers.

the parable of the oven

Babylonian Talmud, tractate Bava Metzia 59a-b which is also quoted for questions regarding public vs. private revelation - an issue that often turns up in Christianity. 

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279657#Comment_1279657

Interesting ... can you provide a source for this line of argument -- it is new to me.

I am not regurgitating a particular self-made rabbinic declaration made in some tractate, although the conclusion I describe (and it is my assessment) does extract from a variety of passages found across the Talmuudh. I'm describing the effective result of these scattered statements. Also, I prefaced my comments above with the quasi-disclaimer "briefly"...I was making an observation more than trying to build a case (although a solid case can be made). Fwiw, Deut. 17:8, 9, 10, 11 is often referenced as a locus for rabbinic authority, but as the first of these two articles point out rather candidly (both written by rabbis), that isn't exactly a defensible argument.

What is the Basis for Rabbinic Authority? | Torah Library of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (yctorah.org)
Understanding and Respecting Rabbinic Authority - The Jewish Link 

Neither the rabbis, nor their self-acknowledged precursors, the Pharisees, are described (or anywhere even contemplated) in the Hebrew Scriptures. For that matter, even their physical domain, the synagogue, is "less than an ethereal phantom" in Tanakh:. Even the very TERM "sunagohgay" is GREEK. That should give you a sense for both "when" and "whence" this "gathering place" phenomenon first made its appearance: late. I could get into a lot of detail, but that would negate the "briefly" aspect of my original intention. It was already acknowledged in 2nd Temple literature that the "last prophets" had come and gone. How that was determined I cannot say, but it was in the ecology of the day. I could easily crank out a dozen paragraphs just to flesh out what I've briefly addressed here. Instead, I'm just going to make one quick observation. In the second article, this statement is made: 

• The written Torah contains many commandments that aren’t fully explicated in the text — and the rabbis are tasked to interpret the Torah’s meaning using interpretive tools transmitted to Moshe Rabbeinu. For example, the Torah repeatedly states that on Shabbat, it’s forbidden to perform “melacha.” The Torah, however, does not explain what “melacha” means. The interpretation and definition of this term is left to the rabbis.

Both bolded statements are factually untrue, as far as the Bible is concerned. At best, they volunteer themselves into this role...it is not assigned to them in Deut. 17 or elsewhere. In fact, to the extent the rabbis' pronouncements are to be perceived as part of a supposed "oral law", the verses Deut. 4:22 & Deut. 12:32 (as well as Prov. 30:6 & Rev. 22:18) all deny the verity and viability of such claims. Each interpreter of Scripture is responsible for how they interpret what the Bible intends. Attempts to doctrinalize unclear passages are a kind of idolatry.

It may seem "fair" to let Jews describe and justify Judaism, but it is somewhat akin to allowing LEOs to investigate and determine whether they have violated rights, broken the law, or engaged in malfeasance when charges are filed against one or more officers. In Pirkei Abot, the first tractate of the Mishna, the claim is made that the reason God chose the Jews as His special people was because He knew that they, of all people, would keep His law. Anyone even loosely familiar with Exodus & Numbers knows that assertion is emphatically contrary to the narrative of what actually happened. Self-assessment ought to be dependably accurate, but it typically is found to be otherwise...that's why most of the prophets had steady employment.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279736#Comment_1279736

I am not regurgitating a specific, particular self-made rabbinic declaration made in some tractate, although the conclusion I describe (and it is my assessment) does extract from a variety of passages found across the Talmuudh

Okay, I'll make a mental note that this is your own thoughts not an academic dispute I had not run into. Thanks for clarifying as your position is interesting. Fortunately, it is a debate that for me is of no material import -- only personal curiosity, in this case tangentially of interest re: implied position on Oral Torah. Your links were helpful.

MJ. Smith

Christian, has this thread been of help or did we go too far off-topic?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279646#Comment_1279646

Really, I find it very hard to understand what he was trying to say from what you have provided.

Just watching this thread.  And chatting here.

But my impression was the opposite of yours. Any discussion of the so-called 'jews' in the 1st century almost has to jump to Josephus and his explanations.  Even at Jesus' trial, one is hard pressed to identify 'which' jews.  Most of the books I've been reading lately distinguish Galilee with Jerusalem ... 'the jews'.  And aren't quite sure what each group believes (beyond a generalization here and there).  Qumran itself is at best, an amalgam of guesses. Then, note the discussion of 'rabbi' (how far back), or as David mentions, 'synagogues'.  Archaeologists find an early one, and off they go.

Which is why 'Jews' is like 'Christians' ... which sect? Are you sure?  When?

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279758#Comment_1279758

Dave contributed to Christian's questions which were:

1. How can I find the Christian teachings about Judaism in the biblical text using Logos?
2. How would I formulate the search string?

Christian Alexander

Sorry for my tardiness. Thanks everyone on this forum that has replied. This was great. I was in Drs all day yesterday so no response. This was a lot of information and much more. I like the different points and their conjugation in the biblical and historical meanings. This pastor was one in my local church. He was originally from Chicago but has Latin and French descent. I tried to make an appointment to see him but only could get his email. So I have contacted him for further information. He did have some skewed information in my view. I have always seen Jews and Christians in tandem with each other. I was curious in the conflict between Jews and Christians. According to my study, the two parties' opposing theological interpretations of the Temple's destruction were a crucial contributing reason to the divide. According to Rabbinic Judaism, the destruction was a punishment for ignoring the Torah. DMB brought me to a good thought. To continue this discussion. How did Josephus view the Jews? 

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279649#Comment_1279649

His response has garnered more questions. See below

Hello Christian,

I am glad to give you some thoughts to your message.

In my session, I was alluding to ancient Judaism in its most basic form. The Jewish religion, established as Judaism in the first century ce, was built on ancient Israelite religion. Their official text was not the Christian version of the Bible. These people were oppressed. 

While Judea was under Antiochus' dominion, many Jews sought to find out how to deal with the Hellenization process. In other words, if you want your children to succeed in the world today, and you come from an aristocratic family, it makes sense for them to have a Greek education. You want your sons to be able to speak, read, and write Greek, for example. That is the language of the elite--of business, government, and everything else. This is what is happening right now in areas like Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not a large city, but it was significant enough to attract elites. 

This whole process of Hellenization, as I'm interpreting it--in a lot of history books, you'll get the impression that the Jews were all good loyal Jews just trying to keep the law, trying to keep Torah, and that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is imposing all of this on them and forcibly imposing Greek religion and Greek culture on them. That's not exactly how it happened. I've recounted the tale the way I've gone about it, and if you read between the lines of some of these ancient Jewish scriptures, it's almost as if there's a dispute going on inside Judaism itself. There was an internal Jewish battle going on.

Many of the regulations contained in the Torah, such as the prohibitions against murder and stealing, represent fundamental principles of a functioning community and are comparable to those found in other legal systems of the period. When ancient peoples met Hebrew law, three specific components stood out: male baby circumcision, which occurs on the eighth day following birth; Sabbath observance as a day of rest; and food restrictions, known as kosher regulations.

Philo of Alexandria, the famous Jewish philosopher of the first century CE, described the Jews of the first century this way:

“For so populous are the Jews that no one country can contain them, and therefore they dwell in many of the most prosperous countries in Europe and Asia, both in the islands and on the mainland.

And while they hold the holy city where stands the sacred temple of the Most High God to be their mother city [meaning Jerusalem], yet those which are theirs by inheritance from their fathers, grandfathers and ancestors even farther back, are in each case accounted by them to be their fatherland, in which they were born and reared, while to some of them, they have come at the very time of their foundation as colonists as a favor to the founders.”

-Philo of Alexandria, Flaccus 46

My statements were lacking conjugation and analysis due to the group of people I were presenting to. 

Judaism is an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture all rolled into one. How can it be all three things at the same time? This is a hard issue, and you may learn more about it in the book "How Judaism Became a Religion," by Leora Batnitzsky. In reality, when you ask Americans who identify as Jewish, you will find that some identify as Jewish by religion and others as Jewish with no religion. Judaism, to me, is all of these things and more--a tangent of loyal underestimation. To cut a long story short, Judaism is an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, but it also transcends and escapes those categories.

The Bible is a sola of faith and authority for Christians but for Jews it comes from an oral tradition. The Bible is our commentary. As a faithful contemporary, Hillel said, “What is hateful to you do, not do to your neighbor. That is the entire Torah. The rest is commentary. Go study.” We have a lot more than Christians in an authoritative sense. 

According to Cynthia Baker's study on the term "Jew," the name "Jew" has been associated with both materialism and intellectualism, socialism and capitalism, worldwide cosmopolitanism and clannish parochialism, everlasting chosenness and perpetual accursedness throughout history. These views are obviously diametrically opposed. Contrary implications do not exist just for people in Europe and America. This strikes me as an oxymoron. All people, past, present, and future, exclude Jews.

So, on the one hand, these Jewish settlers saw the Greeks as, sort of, universally uncivilized: people who were not good, who were not sophisticated, who would be satisfied with a menial wage and had no, kind of, larger collective aspirations. They were inextricably linked to this territory, which the Jewish inhabitants claimed to be the territory of Israel. Despite the fact that there is a sense of superiority. There is a sense that these peasants felt a connection to the soil that Jews were symbolically and religiously tied to but did not know how to farm.

Scholars of ancient Judaism today struggle to define Jewishness, realizing that ancient Jewish conceptions of social collectivity do not entirely correlate to current understandings of ethnicity, country, race, or even religion. Despite present attempts, categorical anachronism may be unavoidable. Scholars should thus assess the analytic value of current descriptive terminology. According to this approach, researchers would be wise to explore adopting a clearly anachronistic—but still useful—term to define ancient Jewishness: "peoplehood." I prefer a more complex conception of Jewishness that bridges the same gaps (between ethnicity, country, and religion) that baffle ancient Judaism historians today. Kaplan's notion of Jewish civilization—land, language, folkways, sanctions, institutions, and arts—provides a startling articulation of how ancient Judaism academics perceive Jewishness in our ancient data.

You need to read Border lines: The partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Judaism: Practice and belief, 63 BCE–66 CE, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept and Jewish studies is too Jewish. The Chronicle Review. March 28, B4-B5. I do not like to see Judaism as a religion as you can see from my response. I hope this helps you, Christian. I welcome any further response or analysis. 

I really do not understand what he is saying here. Any pointers? 

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279736#Comment_1279736

Both bolded statements are factually untrue, as far as the Bible is concerned. At best, they volunteer themselves into this role...it is not assigned to them in Deut. 17 or elsewhere. In fact, to the extent the rabbis' pronouncements are to be perceived as part of a supposed "oral law", the verses Deut. 4:22 & Deut. 12:32 (as well as Prov. 30:6 & Rev. 22:18) all deny the verity and viability of such claims. Each interpreter of Scripture is responsible for how they interpret what the Bible intends. Attempts to doctrinalize unclear passages are a kind of idolatry.

Not sure how I flubbed it, but the verse I intended was Deut. 4:2, not Deut. 4:22.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279801#Comment_1279801

I really do not understand what he is saying here. Any pointers? 

Tbh, I don't perceive any greater sense of understanding from his comments than what you could get from a Magic 8-Ball. If you are seeking insight, I'd keep looking elsewhere.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1279945#Comment_1279945

That is what I was thinking, David. It seems as if he is talking in riddles.