Epinoia

My "OT" above stood for "Oral Torah"; I thought it was clear in context but obviously I could've been clearer. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Apikorus

spin's use of the term "modern" in describing the notion of the Oral Torah is contextualized by his area of expertise, which is Hebrew Bible. On that time scale, the Oral Torah is late, but it is nevertheless ancient to us, dating at least to the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), which is the first literature of Rabbinic Judaism. Most scholars identify the rabbis as the intellectual and traditional heirs to the perushim (= Pharisees).

Did the Pharisees, during the late Second Temple period, hold in an Oral Torah? Josephus basically tells us yes, the Pharisees did believe in an authoritative body of tradition in addition to what was set down in sacred texts. (Of the books in the Hebrew Bible, the Torah and Prophets (Heb. nevi'im) - the T and N in Tanakh - were probably pretty much fixed by the Roman period, although the completion of the Hebrew Bible with the Writings (khetuvim) and the recognition of a Jewish canon date to the early Rabbinic era.) He specifically attributes this tradition to "the fathers," which happens to be the title of the first tractate of the Mishnah (Heb. avot). Here's an excerpt from Antiquities 13.7:

There are many Jewish traditions which one might presume are rabbinic, but which are in fact untraceably ancient. My favorite example is that of tefillin, the prayer boxes that Orthodox Jews wrap around their (left) hand and forehead when engaged in prayer. It's tempting to conclude that this is an absurd literalization of the what is written in the Shema in Deut. 6: "you shall bind them (YHWH's commandments) for a sign on your hands, and they shall be for frontlets (??) between your eyes." A nuanced reading might take this as a metaphor for keeping God's words in our deeds and in our thoughts. Rabbinic Judaism, which is famous (and sometimes defamed) for its hypernomianism, clumsily literalized the metaphor, which is why you can today watch bearded men in black clothes wearing these funny little boxes. Except that tefillin can't be of rabbinic provenance, since examples were found at Qumran, from 300 years before the writing of the Mishnah.

So, while it is always prudent to err on the side of caution and realize that traditions identified as "going back to Moses" in the Mishnah and Talmuds might be retrojections of contemporary rabbinic culture, it is also true that some traditions discussed by the rabbis do predate the rabbinic era, and in the case of tefillin are more ancient than we can reliably trace.

Incidentally, it's quite plausible that the specifics of rabbinic legislation regarding tefillin - that it is the left hand that is adorned, that the hand tefillin is applied first, that tefillin is only applied on weekdays and never after sunset, etc. - date to the rabbinic period. But who knows, really?

Edited to add: I read through the thread started by seeker, and I concur with spin's remarks there.

seeker

I concur that spin's point, that ultimately there is no way to prove this matter on clear evidence is probably true. The problem I see is that the same could be said of a Jewish origen of Christianity. Since, as an atheist, I don't believe in the historicity of Jesus what would you say the catylist would be for a group of Jews to begin believing in something that Jews had never believed in before?

To the Jews of the time a Messiah was an earthly king like David or Solomon, not the son of God. The fact that so many Jewish rebels died trying to be that king shows clearly that they expected God to intervene for them, not transform them into a God. The notion of resurrection isn't a Jewish notion, nowhere does it appear in the old testament.

Apikorus

For a nuanced study of Jewish messianism during the Roman era, see John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star. The "royal messiah" you mention is one of four messianic types identified by Collins.

seeker

Thanks I'll do that

Layman

The doctrine of the physical resurrection of the dead was almost an exclusively Jewish "notion" during the first century. That you do not find it in the Old Testament is quite irrelevant. The Jews of Jesus time did, and they had other intertestamental writings, such as the Maccabees, which clearly attested to their belief in a physical resurrection.

spin

Thanks, that makes things meaningful. It's just that almost everyone uses OT for "old testament".


spin

seeker

spin - I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your participation in this discussion. You've given me valuable insight regardless of whether it agrees with my theory. I think honest disagreement that leads to truth is better than agreeing on a falsehood.