seeker

Hi all,

I had a question for anyone who is familiar with Judaism. I've long held that Christianity doesn't really have roots in Judaism. Recently I had a discussion with a Jewish friend of mine and discovered the importance in that faith of the Oral Torah. I'm trying to develop a theory that Judaism could not have truly been the source of Christianity because christianity has no version of the Oral Torah while Judaism considers it as or more important than the Torah (Old Testament).

I can point to examples in the New Testament to show that Jesus could not have known about the Oral Torah even though it predates the Torah. My theory is that Christianity was a Roman mystery religion based on the Jewish apocalyptic cults and using the image of the various crucified Jewish rebels and the Jewish scriptures as symbols of authority.

Is anyone studied enough in the Oral Torah to comment?

Layman

Your friend is not a product of the Judaism of Jesus' time. While no doubt Torah was important then as well, it is called the "Second Temple Period" for a reason. With the destruction of the Temple, Judaism had to adapt quite significantly to the new situation.

seeker

I agree things may have been different but the tradition of the Oral Torah supposedly dates to before the Torah. If anything I would think that the Second Temple Period would have emphasized the oral tradition, especially during the Roman occupation.

Are you familiar with the Oral Torah?

spin

When the Pharisees emerged as an entity in the second century BCE as a result of empowerment during the struggle against the Seleucid empire, they needed a means to maintain their religio-political existence as separate from the temple-centred religion in the control of the priesthood. The priests had the written torah of which they had total control and which was centred around the temple -- one just needs to read much of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers to get the idea of their direction towards the temple. The Pharisaic response was to rely not on the temple but on community based meetings whose traditions were collected as oral torah.

What that oral torah was then is impossible to say because there is no way to reconstruct it, being passed on only orally, and naturally rejected by the temple. The Pharisaic tradition won the day when the temple was destroyed and in the period after 70 CE it was the major force in Judaism, which stopped being a heterodox religion due to the fact that most contrary to the Pharisaic tradition were killed during the wars. Without the stabilizing effect of a written tradition, one cannot know much about the oral tradition before the fall of the temple -- not even the heirs of the Pharisees --, though obviously some of it was recorded in the early mishnaic tractates.


spin

seeker

HHHMMMM

That seems to contradict Jewish tradition that the Oral Torah actually preceded and was as important as the Written Torah. Basically, if I am understanding you correctly the Oral Torah is a second century construct that was then atributed to preceding the Torah. Do you know of a way to prove that?

The only reason I ask is because Jews point to the frequent times in the Old Testament that it says "...as God commanded..." when there is nothing in the Torah as proof that the Oral Torah preceded the Torah. Also Mathew refers to it "15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition."
at least as I read it. Of course you could argue that Matthew was written after 70 CE, which is probably true. Still that precedes the second century Selucid period somewhat.

spin

It's tied to the emergence of the Pharisees. Oral claims of oral primacy are not worth the paper they are written on.

What one can do is look through the Mishnah and find signs of references to prior to the 2nd c, BCE, but alas and alack, there doesn't seem to be any, though there are a few from the 2nd c. BCE, then more for the 1st c. BCE, then even more from the 1st c. CE...

All cited from the written torah.

Seleucids were 2nd c. BCE.


spin

seeker

spin

Would you call Genesis narrating that God said "let there be light" oral torah? Isn't it merely a written source telling us something? How does one get behind the written source?

If you want to find something you probably will. However, if we are working on evidence, it's not there.

All sorts of things made it into xianity. There is a lot that is Jewish in it. There may be some Pharisaic ideas; there are a lot of indirect biblical ones and a lot of diaspora ideas as well, and we can't forget the various Greek influences as well, both direct and through diaspora Judaism.


spin

seeker

Granted, your point that this is speculation on my part is well taken. As I said before, I do appreciate your input so don't feel as if I were doubting your veracity in my posts. I just wanted a better understanding of the subject. :notworthy

sharon45

The Jews had to adapt since the destruction of the second Temple, but Judaism really didn't have to. There are already many passages written that refer to Jews being in exile and what to do in those cases, none of which has anything to do with jesus. This was already delt with from a time before even the first Temple was destroyed.

If anyone is interested in a link to a complete Talmud instead of the mostly corrupted versions littering the net, try this:

http://talmud.faithweb.com