I think that the Jewish interpretation of the âOld Testamentâ is very different and more flexible than ppl know. So sometimes ppl will be like âexplain this passage in a modern contextâ and Iâm just sitting here like I donât know how about you Explain all these passages where it says weâre supposed to do animal sacrifice and we clearly do not do that anymore. The text is meant for Jews to study and think about and grow and change with, and itâs not just a rigid set of rules forever. We change our practice and interpretation and what we follow and donât. Because the center aspect of Judaism is questioning and reinterpreting and the tanakh is not just a set of rules. Itâs also a history of our people, and a set of stories that are meant as analogies and record of past identity and so much more. Not every passage is binding. I think a lot of non Jews donât even get what this text is supposed to be and read it wrong.
The most insane part about any of this, in my opinion is that judaism isn't even universalist in the proselytizing way to begin with. None of what they're upset about even remotely applies to them to begin with. The few, simple laws for goyim are never what they get mad about, it's always some obscure argument between some rabbis in the year 642 taken out of context or something. Arguing about the meaning of hadiths or the gospels is completely different, because they're actually aspiring to be conceptually universally applicable.
Not to mention the existence of an entire branch of modern judaism whose entire deal is studying and implementing halacha through a historical lens. But even having said that, literally all branches of modern judaism, from the most reconstructionist to the most orthodox, are preoccupied with little else but how to understand the Tanakh and halacha in a modern context.
People don't even know that the christian "old testament" and the Tanakh aren't identical. The concept of someone who doesn't even know that still feeling even remotely qualified to argue with jews about the Tanakh or the Talmud is beyond incomprehensible. That type of confidence is almost inspiring.
A lot of the problems comes from the insistence of interpreting and understanding the jewish "religion" through the lens of christianity or islam, with zero regard for how fundamentally different judaism is, like you described. It's not just "a set of beliefs" comparable to e.g. the Nicene creed - it's laws, belief, politics, history, culture - it's everything. You can't approach international law with the same method of analysis you'd use to understand family court and expect to understand it correctly.
The place where I first started actually comprehending just how little I knew about judaism is the youtube channel of rabbi Tovia Singer - I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in the differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, from someone who's actually qualified to yap on the topic.
