# Rise of rabbinic judaism



## Eoghan (May 16, 2009)

I was intrigued to learn that the Puritans read rabbinic judaism (Talmud, Mishna, Gemmara) were informed by it but studiously never quoted it.

Anyone interested in discussing Rabbinic Judaism and the "Oral Torah"?


----------



## Prufrock (May 16, 2009)

You will find several puritans and orthodox reformed who were _outstanding_ scholars of Rabbinics. A quick reading of the exercitations prefixed to Owen's commentary on Hebrews will remove any doubt. Bishop Lightfoot (a member of the Westminster Assembly) was one of the greatest scholars in the field. Fagius, the Buxtorfs, etc., were other examples of leading Reformed scholars of Rabbinics.

Also, I'm sure you will find many today interested in such things; we certainly haven't lost our interest. In the non-Reformed world, the two "leading" scholars of the field today are probably Neusner and Sanders, but I am not sure of any Reformed scholars who specialize particularly in Rabbinics (though there are many who specialize in second-temple studies). I would be quite pleased, however, to be informed of them.

In general, I would hesitantly say that there are far better things that the typical Christian on the street can and should be studying than Rabbinics; these studies _absolutely_ have an important place in the church's studies, but perhaps it is better for the common man to simply receive the applicatory fruits of these studies by pastors and teachers as they relate to the scriptural texts, than to spend time sifting through an _enormous_ corpus of literature hoping to find something relevant. It is an arcane field.


----------



## chbrooking (May 16, 2009)

As one whose PhD work is in the history of biblical interpretation, I've significantly studied both the hellenistic side (Philo, et al.) and the rabbinic side. I agree with Paul's assessment. They were extremely close readers of the text, but they were also very fanciful in their interpretations of it. I have found very little in them that is of use in biblical studies. I guess the only thing I really get out of them is a puzzle. I see them saying some strange thing and it forces me to look more closely at the Hebrew. Sure enough, they have found some grammatical strangeness and seized on it. But the value is not in where they went with it, but in pointing out the anomaly (e.g., singular frog in Exo. 8:6 -- in Hebrew it's Exo 8:2).

Unless you've got more time than you know how to use, I think you could put your reading efforts to more profitable use.


----------



## CharlieJ (May 16, 2009)

I find it interesting that two of the most ardent Dispensational pastors I know are always telling me that I'm Reformed because I'm not looking at the Bible through "Jewish eyes." I think I would agree with them at least a little bit if we actually had records of Hebrew exegesis significantly pre-Christian. The materials that we do have are mostly post-Christ and anti-Christ, thus being about as useful as Schleiermacher. 

I just don't get why someone would want to run to these "Jewish fables" as the key to understanding the Bible.


----------



## Prufrock (May 16, 2009)

Charlie,

1.) Philological help. This is one of the biggest causes for the rise in Rabbinic studies.

2.) New Testament studies; understanding better the religion and world in which the NT was written; yes, the Mishnah, Talmuds, etc., did not come until a little after the NT era, but they reflect much thought from that earlier time.

3.) Especially among the older writings (Targums, etc), we have paraphrased and expanded readings of the texts; we may disagree with the interpretation, but having a native speaker from the time period giving a contemporary paraphrase of the text can be quite valuable. This is often the same reason that study of the LXX can be valuable.

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 06:47:01 EST-----

Also, Here is a link to a brief article on a great representative of 17th Century second-temple Judaism studies, J.H. Hottinger. The article includes a link to his _Compendium Theologiae Judaicae Methodo Scholastica._ It is important for scholars today to understand the role and relationship that Judaic studies _used to_ have to Biblical studies, as opposed to today's world where our NT understanding is supposedly subject to every changing whim by historical scholars. We can learn a lot from these guys.


----------



## CharlieJ (May 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Charlie,
> 
> 1.) Philological help. This is one of the biggest causes for the rise in Rabbinic studies.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I get all that. There are lots of good reasons to study those guys. I'm talking about certain brands of Dispensationalism that teach that the "Shemitic" way of thinking was obscured by a "Japhetic" (read: Greek philosophy) mindset that persisted through Augustine and Calvin, only recently overturned by the "rediscovery" of Israel-centric Dispensational theology. DTS, like Luther, rises up in a corrupt generation to bring the truth.

Groups like Friends of Israel, Shalom Ministries, and different Messianic organizations basically advertise that they "get" theology because they look at it through this lost Jewish mindset. Inevitably it includes a ton of attention to the Feasts of Jehovah, certain temple rights, and allegorical exegesis used to prove a Dispensational eschatology (odd mix, I know.) It's ridiculous, because Reformed scholars haven't been in the dark about what the Jews believed. They've just been more discerning. 

Until you've spent some time around these people, it's very difficult to understand their mindset and their approach to theology.


----------



## Prufrock (May 16, 2009)

Charlie -- Indeed. Thanks for the clarification. You know -- sometimes I think I just forget that, well, not everyone is Reformed!


----------



## Peairtach (May 16, 2009)

Here's a short introduction to Lightfoot's study of the Gospels with the Talmud.

Jesus Christ in the Talmud and Commentary on the Gospels from the Talmud and the Hebraica: Gustav Dalman: Amazon.co.uk: John Lightfoot, Randolph Parrish: Books

It's interesting rather than deeply profitable. It maybe _broadens_ the Christian's understanding a bit.


----------



## VilnaGaon (May 16, 2009)

Was the Oral Torah only communicated by word of mouth from the time of Moses to the time of the Mishnah(200 AD) as most Rabbis claim? Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah(Hilchot Yesodai Ha Torah) states that the Oral Torah was written during those years by disciples from their teachers only for their own personal use. Of course all these traditions of the Oral Torah eventually ended up under the editorial pen of Judah Ha Nasi who picked, chose and edited what became the Mishnah. As an illustration of what this type of editorship entailed, the Karaite Scholar Al-Kirkisani states that the Gemara portion of the Talmud (which is a discussion of the Mishnah) identified the Angel of the LORD as YAHWEH, which Al-Kirkisani charged was dangerously close to Christianity. This was over a thousand years ago. Subsequent editions of the Talmud have edited out this statement. Similiar editings of the Zohar deleted references to GOD as three persons and other Trinitarian statements. Refer to Yehuda Liebbes ----Studies in the Zohar. There is a whole chapter in that book on the censoring of the Zohar by Jewish Religious Scholars.


----------



## chbrooking (May 17, 2009)

VilnaGaon said:


> Was the Oral Torah only communicated by word of mouth from the time of Moses to the time of the Mishnah(200 AD) as most Rabbis claim? Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah(Hilchot Yesodai Ha Torah) states that the Oral Torah was written during those years by disciples from their teachers only for their own personal use. Of course all these traditions of the Oral Torah eventually ended up under the editorial pen of Judah Ha Nasi who picked, chose and edited what became the Mishnah. As an illustration of what this type of editorship entailed, the Karaite Scholar Al-Kirkisani states that the Gemara portion of the Talmud (which is a discussion of the Mishnah) identified the Angel of the LORD as YAHWEH, which Al-Kirkisani charged was dangerously close to Christianity. This was over a thousand years ago. Subsequent editions of the Talmud have edited out this statement. Similiar editings of the Zohar deleted references to GOD as three persons and other Trinitarian statements. Refer to Yehuda Liebbes ----Studies in the Zohar. There is a whole chapter in that book on the censoring of the Zohar by Jewish Religious Scholars.



I'm not willing to grant the assumption behind your initial question. There was no oral law, distinct from and supplementary to the written law. Therefore it could not be so passed down. Rather, the impetus for the oral law is given in Abot 1.1. And it is this impetus that Jesus calls the "commandments of men". 

I have no patience for, and see no value in kabbalah. It is late, pantheistic, and has nothing to say to biblical studies, In my humble opinion. It says more about what happens to those who rebel against the covenant -- they are given over to a depraved mind.


----------



## wturri78 (May 17, 2009)

I may be way off (it's happened before!) but is rabbinic Judiasm something that N.T. Wright is supposed to have expertise in? Wasn't it based on much of that writing and tradition that he claims to have found his new context for interpreting Paul on justification, i.e. Gentiles becoming "justified" into the covenant community rather than man being acquitted before the bar of God?


----------



## VilnaGaon (May 17, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> VilnaGaon said:
> 
> 
> > Was the Oral Torah only communicated by word of mouth from the time of Moses to the time of the Mishnah(200 AD) as most Rabbis claim? Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah(Hilchot Yesodai Ha Torah) states that the Oral Torah was written during those years by disciples from their teachers only for their own personal use. Of course all these traditions of the Oral Torah eventually ended up under the editorial pen of Judah Ha Nasi who picked, chose and edited what became the Mishnah. As an illustration of what this type of editorship entailed, the Karaite Scholar Al-Kirkisani states that the Gemara portion of the Talmud (which is a discussion of the Mishnah) identified the Angel of the LORD as YAHWEH, which Al-Kirkisani charged was dangerously close to Christianity. This was over a thousand years ago. Subsequent editions of the Talmud have edited out this statement. Similiar editings of the Zohar deleted references to GOD as three persons and other Trinitarian statements. Refer to Yehuda Liebbes ----Studies in the Zohar. There is a whole chapter in that book on the censoring of the Zohar by Jewish Religious Scholars.
> ...



I agree that there is no oral law distinct from the written one. The so-called oral torah is merely the interpretation of the written Torah which is the Bible. The term oral torah itself is wrong since according to Maimonides it was written down! Like all interpretations, it is fallible, has developed through the ages and HAS been subjected to a rigorous editing to remove any Christological interpretations. Witness our own Church History where the plain Gospel Preaching of the Early Church, has over the centuries become muddied and eventually resulted in the Works religion of Popery. However the Mishnah and the Gemara and the various Midrash are not without merit, as when used appropriately they do illumine the Word of God. 
Regarding the late date of the Zohar, it is an open question. Orthodox Judaism holds that it was written by Shimon bar Yochai in the 2nd Century not Moses deLeon in the 13th. A comparison of the writings of deLeon and the Zohar would seem to bear this out. The same cautions regarding the Talmud should be appplied to the Zohar. BTW John Gill did quote from it in his writings so I am not inclined to dismiss it utterly. 
However I would caution a young or weak believer from reading the Rabbinical writings as they have enough poison to kill.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 17, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> these studies _absolutely_ have an important place in the church's studies, but perhaps it is better for the common man to simply receive the applicatory fruits of these studies by pastors and teachers as they relate to the scriptural texts



Let's keep the common people ignorant and just tell them what we want them to know and what they should believe? Only select people should extent their studies beyond a certain point?


----------



## Prufrock (May 17, 2009)

I will simply ask you to not assume the worst of a brother; and to go back, reread the statements, and see if they can be read as representing a less snobbish and more charitable idea. Hint: they can be.

Have a blessed Sabbath.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 17, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> I will simply ask you to not assume the worst of a brother; and to go back, reread the statements, and see if they can be read as representing a less snobbish and more charitable idea. Hint: they can be.
> 
> Have a blessed Sabbath.



I'm sure you meant it in a charitable way, but despite the good intentions, I believe the sentiment is wrong.

So no, I wasn't saying you were being snobbish...I was pointing out that this kind of thinking is the same kind of thinking various groups, including the RCC, had. The idea that the common man was able to read, learn, and discern was part of the Reformation. It's the one argument the RCC makes against us constantly. However, this statement mimics them. They felt they had good intentions as well.

I also dealt with this within the IFB and the Mennonite churches. KJVO, but the Pastor was permitted to read any version he wanted to help him understand a passage better. The Ministers were the only ones to listen to the radio and read magazines/newspapers...the common people were advised to let the minister filter it to them and not extend extra time and effort in it. I was even told that I "read too much" and most of my reading at that time was just the Scriptures and much discussion with my husband.

So you can see where your statement is one of those that, though YOU meant it in the best of manners (and I believe you did  ), it shot up red flags really fast.


----------



## py3ak (May 17, 2009)

Lady Flynt, I do think you may be misreading Prufrock. I think his words are probably in line [KJV]Romans 16:19[/KJV], [KJV]Proverbs 19:27[/KJV] and [KJV]Titus 1:14[/KJV], among other texts that could be mentioned. Those verses do not support Rome in any way; but they do call upon us to be cautious and not swim beyond our depth.


----------



## Prufrock (May 17, 2009)

Okay, then let me explain myself in more words -- for this is wholly different than saying everyone shouldn't read Bibles.

Richard Baxter (I believe?) left quick directions for "Reading a Book." One the directions in selecting reading material was to first ask, "Is this the best thing I could spend my time reading?" For the person whose vocation in life is _not_ academic studies, and who in right use of their vocation necessarily spends their time in other things, I think it should be plain that esoteric works of Rabbinic lore are not the best and most productive thing that can be read to enhance Christian knowledge, devotion and understanding. In the same way, Medieval scholastic texts are essential to fully understanding the causes of the forms of certain Protestant doctrines of Theology Proper; these, however, are absolutely not the thing I would recommend to my Christian brothers to read. It isn't that one isn't worthy of reading these things, or any other sort of similar notion; rather, there are just far better, and more important, beneficial and pressing things for one to read. The one whose vocation is academic study does not have this luxury, but is expected to study sometimes strange things all the day long, so that through this knowledge he can better explain and exposit scripture.

I am sorry, but I think this has absolutely no parallel to Bibles being given to the people at the Reformation; it is not as though anyone will advocate a certain "class" of people being allowed access to certain sources of knowledge of which others will be deprived. It is merely a prudential recommendation that those whose vocations lie in fields other than the academic study of these things spend their time reading better and more pertinent things: I can tell you from experience -- you will read a lot of Rabbinic material and finally beat your forehead and cry out, "Why did I ever decide to read this?!" If you don't have to, don't; the same as I would recommend to my brothers that they not "waste time" reading the religious books of other religions; rather, I would recommend that they read the words of those good and proven Christian writers who were filled with the Holy Spirit of God, and who perhaps have had the (sometimes seemingly unfortunate) task assigned to them of sifting through some of the "other" material to find its importance and relation.

But, I need to go pray before Church; so I leave you there. Have a blessed Sabbath.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 17, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Lady Flynt, I do think you may be misreading Prufrock. I think his words are probably in line [KJV]Romans 16:19[/KJV], [KJV]Proverbs 19:27[/KJV] and [KJV]Titus 1:14[/KJV], among other texts that could be mentioned. Those verses do not support Rome in any way; but they do call upon us to be cautious and not swim beyond our depth.



I agree with cautiousness and discernment. But should we dictate who is capable and who isn't? I believe the way the statement was worded is what cause red flags for me, concern not criticism. I'm afraid my first post came across wrong on that. I just was a bit flabbergasted at how it was stated.

But no, Paul, I don't think any less of you. I am willing to presume the best.

-----Added 5/17/2009 at 10:49:09 EST-----

Bibles weren't the books I was referring to when mentioning Rome and the Reformation. The Scriptures were attached to the pulpit, no issue there. It's more the inference that one shouldn't "read above their station".


----------



## TimV (May 17, 2009)

> I have found very little in them that is of use in biblical studies.



Spot on from Pastor B.

Didn't Spurgeon say of Gill that he dug through a dung hill to find a few jewels?


----------



## Eoghan (May 17, 2009)

I was actually aiming at their role within Judaism. As I understand it they developed into a "force" after the destruction of the second temple. They appear to have moved into the vacuum left and deliberately "ousted" the cohen from their traditional role.

How strong a tradition do the rabbis have?

When did they develop and how?

Jesus speaks of the scribes and Pharisees and Saducees but not the Rabbis?

Are the rabbis the successors to the Pharisees? If so are not their claims to ancient traditions, well... ...second hand at best?


----------



## VilnaGaon (May 17, 2009)

Eoghan said:


> I was actually aiming at their role within Judaism. As I understand it they developed into a "force" after the destruction of the second temple. They appear to have moved into the vacuum left and deliberately "ousted" the cohen from their traditional role.
> 
> How strong a tradition do the rabbis have?
> 
> ...



Rabbinic Judaism developed from the school of Jamnia established by Yochanan ben Zakkai after the destruction of the Temple in AD70. Ben Zakkai was a Pharisee, and Rabbinic Judaism is in many ways the successor to the Pharisees. I can`t recall any favorable mention of the Saducees in the Talmud which was written by the Rabbis. The Saducees spiritual descendants seem to be the Karaites who were Jews against Rabbinic Tradition and supposedly believed in Scripture alone. Some of the finest Grammarians in Hebrew were Karaite such as Aaron ben Asher whose Masoretic Hebrew Text is the Hebrew Text we Christians use. The Rabbis claim to the ancient traditions of the Pharisees has some validity, but these ancient Traditions have been edited and modified to support a new religion of Judaism without the sacrificial system. The Orthodox Judaism in practice today would be very alien to a Pharisee living in time of Our Lord. I could go on further and describe how the Kabbalists in the middle ages further added to Jewish tradition such Pagan notions as Reincarnation(Gilgulim) which is almost universally accepted today in Orthodox Judaism.


----------



## Kevin (May 17, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > these studies _absolutely_ have an important place in the church's studies, but perhaps it is better for the common man to simply receive the applicatory fruits of these studies by pastors and teachers as they relate to the scriptural texts
> ...



JC, you have missed the point! i will assume for charity sake that you have never read the works in question.

Although i have not read more then a few hundred pages in these works i feel comfortable saying that there does not exist on this earth a more wicked, evil, blasphemous, scatelogical, porneographic, hateful, anti-Christ, collection of writings.

If you were to spend the next 5 years reading nothing but the litt. of the modern wicca movement, with no scripture, and no fellowship with the saints, no sacraments, no preaching of the word to restore you mind & spirit, then you would be better off spiritually then if you spent the next 6 days with the Talmud.

These books contain the vile speculations of people that have rejected God, and have turned themselves over to the evil one.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 17, 2009)

Kevin said:


> Although i have not read more then a few hundred pages in these works i feel comfortable saying that there does not exist on this earth a more wicked, evil, blasphemous, scatelogical, porneographic, hateful, anti-Christ, collection of writings.
> 
> If you were to spend the next 5 years reading nothing but the litt. of the modern wicca movement, with no scripture, and no fellowship with the saints, no sacraments, no preaching of the word to restore you mind & spirit, then you would be better off spiritually then if you spet the next 6 days with the Talmud.
> 
> These books contain the vile speculations of people that have rejected God, and have turned themselves over to the evil one.



Amen.


----------



## Eoghan (May 18, 2009)

quote]

Rabbinic Judaism developed from the school of Jamnia established by Yochanan ben Zakkai after the destruction of the Temple in AD70. Ben Zakkai was a Pharisee, and Rabbinic Judaism is in many ways the successor to the Pharisees. I can`t recall any favorable mention of the Saducees in the Talmud which was written by the Rabbis. The Saducees spiritual descendants seem to be the Karaites who were Jews against Rabbinic Tradition and supposedly believed in Scripture alone. Some of the finest Grammarians in Hebrew were Karaite such as Aaron ben Asher whose Masoretic Hebrew Text is the Hebrew Text we Christians use. The Rabbis claim to the ancient traditions of the Pharisees has some validity, but these ancient Traditions have been edited and modified to support a new religion of Judaism without the sacrificial system. The Orthodox Judaism in practice today would be very alien to a Pharisee living in time of Our Lord. I could go on further and describe how the Kabbalists in the middle ages further added to Jewish tradition such Pagan notions as Reincarnation(Gilgulim) which is almost universally accepted today in Orthodox Judaism.[/QUOTE]


This is more along the lines of what I was asking. I have just read a book which raises as many questions as it answers "Rabbi Akiba's Messiah: The Origins of Rabbinic Authority".

It left me wanting to pin down the development of the Rabbis and find out to what extent they were operating in the NT.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 18, 2009)

Kevin said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Prufrock said:
> ...



I was speaking towards a specific comment, not these three particular writings. I also would not be so ignorant as to read ANYTHING in a vacuum, neglecting the things you have mentioned.

Also, note that I did have charity in my other posts...my concern was the unintentional (I am presuming it was unintentional  ) attitude that came across in two particular comments and the red flags that it raised.


Also, yes, I've read portions of one of these books. I'm not ignorant on what is in it. Again, I agree with discernment in reading.


*Back to regular programing  This side issue already has a fork in it and my concern had already been addressed *


----------



## Peairtach (May 22, 2009)

I have only read the short introduction by Lightfoot above. I have also read these books by Jews.

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Essential-Talmud-Adin-Steinsaltz/dp/0465082734/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243033839&sr=1-9"]The Essential Talmud: Adin Steinsaltz: Amazon.co.uk: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Torah-Dummies-Arthur-Kurzweil/dp/0470173459/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243033889&sr=1-2]The Torah for Dummies: Arthur Kurzweil: Amazon.co.uk: Books[/ame]

It's clear there are some veiled and vilely blasphemous references to our Lord in the Talmud, and that we are confirmed in our reading of it how *not* to handle Scripture.

No Christian - unless they have a special reason e.g. an evangelistic ministry to the Hassidim - should wade through the Talmud which amounts to thirty large volumes of rubbish.


----------



## VilnaGaon (May 23, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> I have only read the short introduction by Lightfoot above. I have also read these books by Jews.
> 
> The Essential Talmud: Adin Steinsaltz: Amazon.co.uk: Books
> 
> ...


That Steinsaltz volume is a good introduction. Better still is Rabbi Steinsaltz's New edition of the Talmud which is the only edition of the Talmud in print today which re-incorporates all the portions of the Talmud censored by the Papal Inquisition. Those portions many in the Sanhedrin Tractate(which has been Translated into English) refer to our Lord Jesus blasphemously. 
But in this age when many scholars deny that the Lord Jesus was a historical person, the existence of these statements in the Talmud show from the evidence of his worst enemies that He existed and that the Gospel Account is accurate. There is a new book by Peter Schafer --- Jesus in the Talmud which translates and explains these portions. 
I advise weak and new Christians to avoid the Talmud and other Rabbinic Texts such as the Chumash by Rashi or Ibn Ezra's Commentaries, as they can be very dangerous in untrained hands.


----------

