Are anti-semitic claims about the Talmud accurate?

[Transcontinental]

A lot of "Anti Semites", especially online, use verses that are supposedly from the Jewish Talmud. Every verse they provide supposedly prove that Jews are hostile to non-Jews and are Satanic followers.
However, one thing they never show are the actual physical verses on paper. I get that getting the Talmud is very difficult, but I'd expect at least one person to show physical paper proof evidence confirming the Anti-Gentile verses of the book.

Sources that supposedly debunk claims about the Talmud:
https://antisemiticlies.com/
https://debunkingantisemitism.blogspot. ... almud.html

[Wahrheitssucher]

A lot of "Anti Semites" use verses that are supposedly from the Jewish Talmud.

Hmmmm?
And this from a person who since coming to CODOH has asked three questions, but never commented or responded to any of the replies.

Interesting.

Erm… Can you name any of these alleged “anti-semites”?

[Transcontinental]

A lot of "Anti Semites" use verses that are supposedly from the Jewish Talmud.

Hmmmm?
And this from a person who since coming to CODOH has asked three questions, but never commented or responded to any of the replies.

Interesting.

Erm… Can you name any of these alleged “anti-semites”?

I only reply to responses if I ever want further information. By anti-Semite I mean individuals who post Infograph’s about the Talmud.

[Wahrheitssucher]

A lot of "Anti Semites" use verses that are supposedly from the Jewish Talmud.

Erm… Can you name any of these alleged “anti-semites”?

By anti-Semite I mean individuals who post Infograph’s about the Talmud.

How does that constitute ‘anti-semitism’? Can you explain please.

[Transcontinental]

Erm… Can you name any of these alleged “anti-semites”?

By anti-Semite I mean individuals who post Infograph’s about the Talmud.

How does that constitute ‘anti-semitism’? Can you explain please.

No you can answer my question

[Archie]

A lot of "Anti Semites", especially online, use verses that are supposedly from the Jewish Talmud.

This is too vague. How can we tell you if something is accurate unless you present us with a specific claim for evaluation?

Speaking generally, some of the controversial Talmud quotes are absolutely real. Gittin 57a for example has the passage that says Jesus will be boiled in excrement. This can be easily confirmed by looking it up online.

Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages. The Gemara comments: Come and see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world. As Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm, whereas Jesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their well-being.

https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.57a.4?lang=bi

Some Jewish apologists have tried to argue that the passage might refer to some other guy named Jesus, but that's strikes me as a very fanciful, optics-motivated interpretation.

Now, most people posting random memes online are not Talmud scholars (or scholars at all for that matter), so I'm sure a lot of what they post is incorrect or mangled in some way. So what? If you are serious about this, focus on serious, published material, not random internet posts.

Here is a mirror of a now deleted Wikipedia page with some good material.
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Criticism ... article%29

See in particular this historical episode from Medieval France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Paris

Clemens & Blair has reprinted and translated a 1929 text by Erich Bischoff, a German scholar. This is on my tbr but I haven't gotten to it yet.
https://www.clemensandblair.com/catalog ... chan-aruch
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... han-aruch/

My general thought on this matter is that a lot (probably most) religious texts have weird stuff in there. I am generally willing to give people a pass on this because weird passages, even if authentic, don't necessarily reflect the views of the current adherents to the religion. And in the case of the Talmud in particular, my understanding is that it is essential a collection of rabbinical debates, in which case we would certainly not expect every view expressed to be universal even at the time. Problematic passages in the Talmud per se do not bother me. Where it becomes politically relevant is the extent to which there is any indication of Jewish hostility toward "goyim" that survives till this day. And I think there is a strong case that in the case of the Jews, the history does show hostility toward "the goyim" and I do think this survives down to the present. And it's not only "anti-Semites" who have acknowledge this. Israel Shahak has argued that the oppression of the Palestinians in Israel is a result of this mentality. See his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years.

It became apparent to me, as drawing on knowledge acquired in my youth, I began to study the Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of those laws, and the worldview which they both create and express is taken into account.

Ron Unz has discussed similar issues in this article that is free online.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravd ... -religion/

If the Gentile population became aware of these Jewish religious beliefs and the behaviors they promote, major problems for Jews might develop, so an elaborate methodology of subterfuge, concealment, and dissimulation has come into being over the many centuries to minimize this possibility, especially including the mistranslation of sacred texts or the complete exclusion of crucial sections.

[Archie]

Sources that supposedly debunk claims about the Talmud:
https://antisemiticlies.com/
https://debunkingantisemitism.blogspot. ... almud.html

I don't know about the specific examples they cite, but this type of Jewish apologetics just exacerbates the issue for me. I don't know about those specific examples. But assuming those are indeed misquoted, they're still cherry-picking. Stop beating around bush. Are there problematic passages in the Talmud regarding Jew-Gentile relations and related matters? Yes or no? If yes, then it is disingenuous to imply that all of the controversial passages have been fabricated by "anti-Semites."

The fact that they feel the need to be dishonest makes the problem way worse for me. The cover up is often worse than the crime.

ETA: By the way, Transcontinental. I have moved your threads to the appropriate sections of the forum. Please do not start more threads in the archive area which is for discussion of the old CODOH forum. Please post to the Holocaust or History areas, to whichever section is the best fit for your topic. For example, this is topic is a good fit for Jewish history.

[pilgrimofdark]

"Does this user debunk anything?"
> No, not really.

"What about this one? David Duke."
"What about this one? Anti-semites."
"What about this one? [...]"
"What about this one? [...]"
"What about this one? [...]"
"What about this one? [...]"

I see where this is going.

However, one thing they never show are the actual physical verses on paper. I get that getting the Talmud is very difficult, but I'd expect at least one person to show physical paper proof evidence confirming the Anti-Gentile verses of the book.

I checked my copy of Peter Schafer's Jesus in the Talmud and he doesn't include a single scan of a page from the Talmud. Anti-semite confirmed?

Infographic / meme creators are likely working from secondary sources, like Peter Schafer's Jesus in the Talmud, where Schafer was working from the primary source documents.

Is the act of creating the infographic what turns a person into an anti-Semite? It can't be their failure to show physical paper proof of the verse, because Schafer (who's had too many Jewish scholarly positions to list) also didn't do that.

Academics don't even read the primary sources they cite (see here or here for discussion of such source plagiarism), so I'm not sure anonymous meme creators will hold themselves to a higher standard.

If anonymous meme creators want to come and describe their meme creation methodology, I'm sure they'd be welcome here. I suspect someone will tell them they have a "flawed methodology"

There's also a thread to address and correct mistakes.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
So…
Transcontinental accused people of being anti-semites for sharing quotes from the Talmud!
Wahrheitssucher asked for an example of such a person and their post.

Transcontinental replied: “By anti-Semite I mean individuals who post Infograph’s about the Talmud.”

Wahrheitssucher asked: “How does that constitute ‘anti-semitism’? Can you explain please.”

Transcontinental refused and demanded: “No, you can answer my question.”

So:
A.) This person accuses numerous, vaguely identified, nameless people of being irrational haters of jews, but won’t give a single example of one.

Plus:
B.) this person point blank refuses to explain how someone quoting from the Talmud constitutes as hatred of all jews.

Ok. Got it.

[Archie]

Is the act of creating the infographic what turns a person into an anti-Semite?

Interestingly enough, mainstream scholars are allowed to sprinkle potentially disturbing material throughout their books, and there's usually not much of an issue. But if someone goes through the academic sources and collects and repackages the explosive bits for a mass audience, that seems to be where they really lay down the law. For the most part, nobody reads the scholarly stuff, and the people who do are by and large seen as very reliable/not dangerous. The real threat is the exposure of certain information to a general audience.

It can't be their failure to show physical paper proof of the verse, because Schafer (who's had too many Jewish scholarly positions to list) also didn't do that.

I don't understand Transcontinental's demand for "physical paper." Does he want us to break out, like, the original scrolls or something? Does he think the online versions hosted on Jewish websites have been compromised in some way by anti-Semites?