4 ms·

Becoming a Religion of the Book: Scripture Before the Bible

28 points by diodorus 5y ago

onecommentman 5y ago
“Judaism only became a “religion of the book”—that is, one whose core entailed the study of sacred texts—following the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70.” So the Torah itself could be seen as the Third Temple, or the true First Temple rebuilt, manifested in a form that could never be torn down, stone by stone, ever again? A form that could ever be with the Jews in their trials and travels over the Centuries, carried and copied and taught. A poetic thought…
- nickloewen 5y ago
  As I understand it, this idea is quite similar to how the central scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, is understood in Sikhi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > So the Torah itself could be seen as the Third Temple What ruins the poetry is that the Temple was for making sacrifices to God as commanded in the law. The Torah itself is demonstrably unable to facilitate this sacrifice making the poetic comparison quite weak.
mcv 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand the distinction this article is trying to make. The law was clearly important well before 70 AD; Jesus had frequent arguments with Pharisees who, from what I understand, were sticklers to a very detailed interpretation of the law/Thora. Although I suppose it's possible they were ahead of the curve and their approach to Judaism didn't become universal until after 70 AD. I'm also not sure why a passage from Nehemia describing Ezra, who both lived in the 5th century BC, has to be from the 2nd or 3rd century BC. And I'm not even sure about the dichotomy of a religion of the book and a cult of sacrifice; many of those sacrifices are described in the book, after all.
throwawaygal7 5y ago
this is a nice introduction to Judaism in first millennium BC for lay people but it has odd biases and chooses framinings that stretch the truth at times to fit a broader cultural narrative. Yes, in the time of Jesus the Torah was stored as scrolls not a single book - the compilation of the Torah into a book is post Christian Era. This surprised exactly no one. That Judaism is a cultic religion with ritual elements and pslams being sung during processions and temple services is an utterly unfascinating and banal observation that anyone who is undergrad level familiar with biblical studies would know. Or even someone who just reads some of the OT as an adult. I see this a lot with the 'ashera as a consort of yaweh' hay making efforts so many engage in - this is all spelled out in the Bible if you bother to read it. Yes, many people in Palestine and broader Israel practiced synthetic versions of Yaweism or whatever you want to call it. Why do we always approach the Bible from a post WW2 western low church ('billy graham') perspective?

28 points by diodorus 5y ago

“Judaism only became a “religion of the book”—that is, one whose core entailed the study of sacred texts—following the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70.” So the Torah itself could be seen as the Third Temple, or the true First Temple rebuilt, manifested in a form that could never be torn down, stone by stone, ever again? A form that could ever be with the Jews in their trials and travels over the Centuries, carried and copied and taught. A poetic thought…

nickloewen 5y ago
As I understand it, this idea is quite similar to how the central scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, is understood in Sikhi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Granth_Sahib
nyokodo 5y ago
> So the Torah itself could be seen as the Third Temple What ruins the poetry is that the Temple was for making sacrifices to God as commanded in the law. The Torah itself is demonstrably unable to facilitate this sacrifice making the poetic comparison quite weak.

mcv 5y ago

I'm not sure I understand the distinction this article is trying to make. The law was clearly important well before 70 AD; Jesus had frequent arguments with Pharisees who, from what I understand, were sticklers to a very detailed interpretation of the law/Thora. Although I suppose it's possible they were ahead of the curve and their approach to Judaism didn't become universal until after 70 AD. I'm also not sure why a passage from Nehemia describing Ezra, who both lived in the 5th century BC, has to be from the 2nd or 3rd century BC. And I'm not even sure about the dichotomy of a religion of the book and a cult of sacrifice; many of those sacrifices are described in the book, after all.

throwawaygal7 5y ago

this is a nice introduction to Judaism in first millennium BC for lay people but it has odd biases and chooses framinings that stretch the truth at times to fit a broader cultural narrative. Yes, in the time of Jesus the Torah was stored as scrolls not a single book - the compilation of the Torah into a book is post Christian Era. This surprised exactly no one. That Judaism is a cultic religion with ritual elements and pslams being sung during processions and temple services is an utterly unfascinating and banal observation that anyone who is undergrad level familiar with biblical studies would know. Or even someone who just reads some of the OT as an adult. I see this a lot with the 'ashera as a consort of yaweh' hay making efforts so many engage in - this is all spelled out in the Bible if you bother to read it. Yes, many people in Palestine and broader Israel practiced synthetic versions of Yaweism or whatever you want to call it. Why do we always approach the Bible from a post WW2 western low church ('billy graham') perspective?