User:Standforder/Sandbox

Criticism of the Talmud
This article is about criticisms regarding the Talmud, as a source of reliable information and as well as ethical guide. Many of the devote followers of mainstream Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism on the other hand regard the Talmud to be “the word of God” and “the central pillar” of the rabbinic faith. “No other work has having had a comparable influence on the theory and practice of Jewish life.” According the Rabbinic party’s tradition, supposedly, the very earliest of which came from Mount Sinai, where supposedly Moses had God revealed the Oral torah along with written. He then recited the information to the seventy elders and selected Levites. After which was later re-organized and finally composed in written form, as such we see today.

Critics reject this and the idea Talmud is “the word of God.” 10th century Karaites author Salmon ben Yeruham wrote regarding this these words regarding rabbinic party and the Talmud: “your deeds are but falsehood and rebellion against God…There is no true Law in them.”

The Pharisees composed the orthodox rabbinic party were its supporters. The first century Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus reports its opponents including: both the Sadducees party and the Essenes community but both had some followed some non-biblical guidelines. Many of the first century common Jewish people (“am ha-′arets ”) were also look down for not following the rabbinic oral code. The Samaritans community still to this day, regret the authority of the Mishnah but have other guidelines.

Followers of John the Baptist, as well as the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, a first century Jew, later known as the Christians, and the Karaites parties some followed also some non-biblical rules. Later Islam was to also follow and it also regretted the authority of the Talmud.

Claim of Divine origin
Accusations have included: Falsification of scripture, strained reasoning, and unhistorical content and superstitious beliefs.

Has long been questioned religious and non-religious opponents as for example Christians, Muslims, Reform and conservation movements, Karaites, Mandaean, Samaritans. There also secularists, as for example some freethinkers, agonistic and atheists. Some historians also question the considerably differing views on era of the Tanakh and the era of the Rabbis.

One considerable difference can be found the Babylonian Talmud in Tractate Shabbat in which states: That there are some “nine hundred and seventy-four 974 generations before” what Genesis says is the first created man Adam. Even within the world of Orthodox Judaism there are differing views as to the Talmud. Another difference cited is theology on the state of person in death,

The Talmud even speaks of the dead contacting the living. “Probably on account of the influence of Platonism,” says the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, states “[rabbis] believed in the pre-existence of souls.” Jews, God and History states that though the Pharisees carried on the torch of Jewish ideology and religion, “the torch itself had been ignited by the Greek philosophers.”

Which even can be seen today in modern Jewish literature: The Encyclopedia of Judaism also goes so far as to comment: “The Oral Law is not a definitive code; it includes many diverse and even conflicting opinions.” Jewish author Nathan Ausubel wrote in his book called The Book of Jewish Knowledge that the Talmud contains “a large assortment of pointless naïvetés, taboos, superstitions, demonic lore, myths…which mar the Talmud may also be found in the religious and philosophical writings of the Greeks and the Romans, of the Church Fathers and the medieval Christian Schoolmen.” Another long conversional subject foe example includes the Seder ‘Olam Rabbah and other Talmudic chronological works which have caused much considerable discussion among Jewish scholars.

Many scholars and researchers alike question oral narratives being later recorded: Is the information accurate? Was it rabbinic propaganda? What picture does it picture and who’s? One Author put it this way: “Most often, pieces of information passed on orally are subject to additions & subtractions, modifications, distortions, exaggerations, & confusions, so that it is often difficult to separate the truth from the fiction.” - The book West African Traditional Religion. Some have compared this of unreliable preservation, to child’s game Le téléphone arabe

Agnostics
One passage often quoted by critics is found in the Babylonian Talmud: “Cattle must not be placed in the inns of the heathens (gentiles) because they are suspicious of having sexual intercourse with them. And for the same reason a female must not stay alone with them, because they are suspected of insult; nor should a male stay with them alone, because they are suspected of bloodshed.” Of course, this is not to say this in any way reflects the opinions and doctrines of modern orthodox rabbis. As The Encyclopedia of Judaism states: “The Oral Law is not a definitive code;” it includes many diverse and even conflicting opinions.

The Samaritans:
Followers of the Samaritan religion reject the rabbinic party including it religious leaders, oral traditions and literature including Talmud. They have criticized the Talmud as wrongfully “supplementing the Torah”, they also they cite the differences between the two branches of Theology For example on subjects as how to trace lineages through the maternal line or the Paternal and interpretation on things as Tefillin.

Sadducees
The Sadducees were a Jewish religion which flourished during the Second Temple period. One of their main arguments with the Pharisees (later known as Rabbinic Judaism) was over their rejection of an Oral Law. The disagreement was not strictly speaking about the Talmud, as this had not been written at the time.

Essenes
Essenes, a monastic group of people, had a “monastic organization”. Though they had non-biblical rules, and customs, they reject much of the oral traditions.

Karaites
Another group which rejected the oral law was Karaism. It believed to arise within roughly two centuries of the completion of the Talmud. Karaism developed as a reaction against the Talmudic Judaism of Babylonia. The central concept of Karaism is the rejection of the Oral Torah, as embodied in the Talmud, in favor of a strict adherence to the Written Law only. This opposes the fundamental rabbinic concept that the Oral Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai together with the written Law the Holy Torah. Some Karaites] later] took a more moderate stance, allowing that some element of tradition (called sevel ha-yerushah, the burden of inheritance) is admissible in interpreting the [[Torah and that some authentic traditions are contained in the Mishnah and the Talmud, though these can never supersede the plain meaning of the Written Law.

Reform Judaism
With the rise of Reform Judaism, during the nineteenth century, the authority of the Talmud was again questioned. The Talmud was seen by Reform Jews as a product of late antiquity having relevance merely as a historical document. In some cases a similar view was taken of the written law as well, while others appeared to adopt a neo-Karaite "back to the Bible" approach, though often with greater emphasis on the prophetic than on the legal books.