Video Transcript: Judaism Lecture 6

 This is our last session on Judaism. And there's a point that I need to go back  and pick up from our last talk. And that has to do with the destruction of the  temple in the year 70. There are two things that I'd like to mention about this.  And they're in anticipation of our upcoming sessions on Christianity. The  prophets had said, that the Messiah, when he came, would purify the temple.  And that clearly implied that the temple would be there, and that he would enter  it, and he would do this, that and the other, whatever purify it meant. But with its  destruction, it means that those prophecies can't come true any longer. Whoever the Messiah was, would have had to come before the year 70. It also has  another very significant result, concerning the New Testament books, the New  Testament canon, there's been a lot of study and a lot of debate over dating the  books of the New Testament. And there have been scholars who have  speculated that say the Gospel of John wasn't written until the year 250, and  things like that. But the fact that the temple was destroyed in the year 70,  wrecks all those speculations. You see, this was the major tragedy in the history  of Judaism. And early Christians, were observant Jews who came to believe that Jesus was the Christ, He was the Messiah, and even more than that the  incarnation of God, but they were almost all Jews. And so the destruction of the  temple would have been just a significant and just as tragic for them. In fact, for  those of them who had become Christians, it would also confirm their  Christianity, because they could use that argument that whoever the Messiah  was, would have had to have come prior to the destruction of the temple. And  that Jesus had, in fact, purified the temple. He had thrown the money changers  out for cheating people right on the grounds, the sacred grounds of the temple.  And the fact is, there is not a whiff of a breath of acknowledgment that the  temple has been destroyed in any of the books of the New Testament. That may offer you an analogy to make this point clear. Suppose you picked up a book,  and it was a history of New York City. And it ended with no account of the  attacks on the World Trade Center. What would you suppose about when that  book had been written? you'd assume then you'd believe that that book was  written prior to those attacks. That's why the account isn't in there. And same  thing is true here. Since there's no mention of the destruction of the temple in  any New Testament book, the conclusion is that they were all written prior to the  destruction of the temple. Or it would have at least been mentioned, it would  have been used as an argument for the Jews who were Christians against the  Jews who remained in Judaism. But there's no such argument made. And, and  no mention of the destruction. That, to my mind, that's an argument that has no  rebuttal. There's no comeback. I know that there are a few scholars that have  tried to say, well, they're little hints that the that the temple was destroyed. I find  that ridiculous. little hints that the temple was destroyed something that it's like  saying the well, this book on New York City didn't actually describe the attack of  the World Trade Center and didn't say it was destroyed, there are little hints that 

it might have happened. That's ridiculous. major event like that could not could  not fail to have major coverage. So I find that to be a powerful argument. And in  fact, I think it's a powerful argument. For those who of us who believe Jesus was the Messiah. The Messiah was to come to the temple and the temple was  destroyed in the year 70 so the Messiah can't come after that. And prior to 70,  who of all the people that ever claimed to be Messiah is most more is more  likely the Messiah than all the rest? That's seems to be perfectly obvious. So I  wanted to point this out about the destruction and the significance of the date.  And in relation, then to our upcoming lectures on Christianity. We have now to  say some things about the development of Judaism since I did get to the Middle  Ages anyway, last time by talking about Maimonides and so on. But in more  recent centuries, there have been further developments, doctrinal developments among Jews. And in Judaism. There are a number of major branches that have  emerged in more modern times. Of course, the Orthodox Jews still regard the  Torah as prime prime revelation from God, and try to keep as the old Jewish  practices, the observances the feast days, the rituals as strictly as they can,  despite the fact that there's no central place of worship in the world, there's no  temple, where the sacrifices are continued. They those are ended. But at the  Orthodox, wherever they are, Europe, US, as well as Israel wants to keep as  strict as strictly to the law of Moses as they can. In the 19th century, we have the rise of Reformed Judaism. And Reformed Judaism, meant for these people, the  primacy of reason, not revelation. They wanted to take over religious practices  insofar as they seem rational, and could be justified rationally. And they  regarded themselves as curators of Jewish tradition, and practice, rather than  the the tradition and practice having been revealed by God and being binding on them. I once invited a reformed rabbi, to speak to one of my classes. And one of my colleagues at the at the college was a conservative Jewish woman. She was happen to walk past the doorway as this man was lecturing, and he was saying,  it's not that we believe all this stuff. God didn't really hand Moses tablets on  Mount Sinai. God didn't part the Red Sea and help the Jews escape and so on.  This is all Jewish folklore. And we are curators of, of Jewish tradition and  practice. And she heard that, as she was walking by, I was standing next to the  door, and she said, step out of the way, she says to me, I'm going to go spit on  him. And I, no, no, please don't. I managed to prevent that. But I want to show  you, I want you that illustrates, what I want to show you is the attitude of  conservative or orthodox toward reform and Reconstructionist. It's pretty bitter.  So that Reformed Judaism has come to us, from the middle of the 19th century.  And, and of course, this is one of the branches today. There is also conservative Judaism. Now here's a group of people that react against the reform. This isn't  just folklore and, and being custodians of a tradition, for the sake of you know,  like being museum curators that exhibit all the artifacts that we've collected and  protected. No, there's real religious value there. Let me read you what some one

conservative says. Conservative Judaism had its origins simultaneously in  America and Western Europe. Among those Jews who either in theory or  practice, could no longer be Orthodox and yet refused to accept what they  regarded as the extreme non traditionalism of Reformed Judaism. The first is the assertion of the centrality of religion in Jewish life. The second theme heavily  underscored is the sense of tradition of history of the continuity of Jewish life,  both through time and in space. It is this feeling of the organic unity of one  Jewry, with other Jewries? which Professor Solomon Schechter, the leading  figure in American Conservative conservativism, caught in the phrase catholic  Israel, Catholic in the sense of universal. This phrase is more than a description. It's intended to serve as a norm for the guidance of behavior that shall be done  by Jews, it implies, which is normal by cast to catholic Israel, to hold on to the  traditional to sanction modification slowly, reluctantly, and if at all possible within  the framework of Jewish law. So that's the typical, conservative attitude. And of  course, that's it, you can see the contrast with the Orthodox and also with the  Reformed. Since that time, there has been the rise of what is called  Reconstructionist Judaism, a leading figure in this movement was Mordecai  Kaplan, who died in 1983. This was a movement that arose among conservative Jews, and tends toward the reformed position. On according to this view, there's no personal God, no revelation, no divine intervention, there is no creed for this,  no required theological beliefs. It attaches religious feelings to naturalism. It's  closely allied with Reformed Judaism, but differs in holding the Jewish practice  be maintained wherever possible, what they but they are understood as  folkways, rather than commands from God. And those are the main branches as they exist today. Of course, there's a lot of variation within them. So just ticking  off these four doesn't account for the nuances and varieties within each and how they relate to one another. This concludes our sessions on Judaism. And I hope  that you will do more reading, because we've only been able to scratch the  surface. I know I said that about Hinduism and Buddhism, but to have that  feeling whenever we reached the end of several lectures, and we've covered  them, And huge tradition with such great variation, and many subtle differences  and nuances of doctrine, and we get done. I've just barely skimmed the surface,  but I hope that this will be sufficient to introduce you to the literature, and you will go ahead and do even more reading in the future.