THE CREATION OF THE TRADITION OF "ORAL LAW" IN RABBINIC JUDAISM

[Clear]

Does anyone know much about how the tradition developed regarding Rabbinic Jewish "Oral Law" as it relates to the rabbinic claim that traditions and writings created by the rabbis of rabbinic Judaism (e.g. Mishna, Talmud, etc) were an unwritten (i.e. oral) set of laws Given to Moses on Sinai at the same time he received Torah. That is, the claim that these writings were an "oral Torah" as the same times as the "written" torah was given.

For example, when Sherira Gaon collates early rabbinical literary sources, he attempts (in his famous letter to the north African Jewish Community) to connect the rabbinic traditions with Moses and Sinai. As far as I can tell, this is the earliest successful attempt to create the tradition that the rabbinic traditions were part of a sinaitic oral "torah" given to Moses. Maimonides carries this tradition even further such that these rabbinic traditions become an "oral Torah" for him as well (and for many of the Jews that read maimonides opinions).

I understand the need to try to create an aura of "authenticity" and "authority" to rabbinic writings, but am wanting to find out more about how the traditions of the early rabbis acquired a mantel of being given to Moses and Ezra, etc. as an "oral torah". The motive for creating the claim is obvious (to increase credibility for rabbinic writings), but it is the history of how such a tradition started and evolved that is somewhat obscure and in what I am interested in.

Any historians on the forum who know much about how this tradition of oral torah was created and evolved?

Clear

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you can access it, The Breaking of the Tablets and the Begetting of the Oral Law: A History of "Torah Shebe'al Peh" by David Weiss Halivni should prove interesting.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Jayhawker Soule

Thank you for the reference.

I've read the article you referred to and it is part of what piqued my interest in this specific history. Halivni, like, ito, Elman, glasner, Jaffnee, etc, Halivni (like others) tries to examine the relatively modern (post a.d.) claims that there existed an "oral law" beside written torah. The implication is that this specific claim by the later Rabbinic Judaism was created in an attempt to provide credibility to the multitude of non-torah rabbinic traditions.

While the motive to create this legend is obvious (similar to the spurious Christian claim that Peter was a standing bishop of Rome), the earliest mechanism of HOW this myth was created (and later became firm tradition) is what is more difficult to follow.

It is difficult to follow history of the development of this claim in the earliest periods. That is the specific history that I am interested in. Halivni and others point out that there is no significant data to confirm this legend while there is evidence that undermines it.

Though I've read this article, I still thank you so much for your recommendation.

Clear
τωφυω

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the earliest mechanism of HOW this myth was created (and later became firm tradition) is what is more difficult to follow.

It may prove to be more that difficult.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE RABBINIC MYTH / LEGEND OF AN "ORAL TORAH" GIVEN TO MOSES

It may prove to be more that difficult.

I DO agree and I think that it would be very difficult to prove that an “oral Torah” ever existed in support of the rabbinic claims that Moses was given a vast amount of torah that was passed on orally from Generation to generation until it was finally written down. I think it would be much easier (as halivni points out) to show that such a claim is unsupportable historically.

Rabbi Halivni points out that even the term “oral Torah” does not appear earlier than the late third century and becomes very popular thereafter, mainly because the claim it was seen as a potential way to justify the many rabbinic additions and changes to torah that never actually appear in any biblical text.

I think halivnis’ research is quite profound in its historical implications.

Once the rabbinic religion arose and replaced Jahwism as the dominant religion of Israel, the rabbis needed some way to clothe the many non-torah rules and prohibitions in some sort of cloak of authority and the creation of the myth of an “oral Torah” fit this purpose very well. IF the myth / legend of an "oral torah" is untrue, then the claims that the many rabbinic additions and innovations to the ancient Law of Moses (which the messiah Jesus called "the traditions of men") are indeed interpretations, innovations, inventions, etc. made by the rabbis and do not represent the Law of Moses.

Thank you again for your reference. Halivni and the others I mentioned who have done research on this subject are wonderful but I was looking for more data. If anyone knows of other researchers who have studied this subject, please let me know.



Clear
δρακω

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

REGARDING THE RABBINIC MYTH / LEGEND OF AN "ORAL TORAH" GIVEN TO MOSES

I DO agree and I think that it would be very difficult to prove there an “oral Torah” ever existed in support of the rabbinic claims that Moses was given a vast amount of torah that was passed on orally from Generation to generation until it was finally written down.

Proving that Moses ever existed would be challenging enough. And just who were these Jahwists that were replaced (and when)?

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE ANCIENT RELIGION OF ISRAEL

And just who were these Jahwists that were replaced (and when)?

Hi @Jayhawker Soule

Jahwism is the name scholars apply to the ancient religion of Israel, the religion of Abraham, Moses, etc.
Rabbinic Judaism is the religion that ultimately was created, and was adopted by (and thus replaced) the early religions of Israel as the predominant religion of Judah (and remnants of other tribes who were mixed with Judah).

Rabbinic Judaism coexisted with other Jewish denominations such as the Sadducees, Essenes, etc. However, After the loss of the final temple in Jerusalem, the Sadducees and their religion declined in import and the Pharisees and their religion increased in dominance and the later Orthodox rabbinic Judaism is seen as having inherited dominance as a religion of the Jews.


Clear
δρακω

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

REGARDING THE ANCIENT RELIGION OF ISRAEL



Hi @Jayhawker Soule

Jahwism is the name scholars apply to the ancient religion of Israel, the religion of Abraham, Moses, etc.
Rabbinic Judaism is the religion that ultimately was created, and was adopted by (and thus replaced) the early religions of Israel as the predominant religion of Judah (and remnants of other tribes who were mixed with Judah).
After the loss of the final temple in Jerusalem, the Sadducees and their religion declined in import and the Pharisees and their religion increased in dominance and the later Orthodox rabbinic Judaism is seen as having inherited dominance as a religion of the Jews.


Clear
δρακω

Interesting history.

 

[Shaul]

The term "rabbinic Judaism" is a pleonasm. ALL Judaism has rabbis. Jesus of Nazareth claimed the moniker of rabbi. "Rabbinic" means from or of rabbis. So all forms of Judaism and Christianity are rabbinic. I realize that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is commonly used. However that doesn't make it right. For myself I reject the term.

The Oral Law is identified within the Written Torah. It was not "invented" later.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Jayhawker Soule and @Shaul


1) REGARDING THE ADVENT OF RABBINIC JUDAISM

Jayhawker Soule asked who the "Jahwists" were :

Clear said : “Jahwism is the name scholars apply to the ancient religion of Israel, the religion of Abraham, Moses, etc.
Rabbinic Judaism is the religion that ultimately was created, and was adopted by (and thus replaced) the early religions of Israel as the predominant religion of Judah (and remnants of other tribes who were mixed with Judah).

Rabbinic Judaism coexisted with other Jewish denominations such as the Sadducees, Essenes, etc. However, After the loss of the final temple in Jerusalem, the Sadducees and their religion declined in import and the Pharisees and their religion increased in dominance and the later Orthodox rabbinic Judaism is seen as having inherited dominance as a religion of the Jews.” (post #7)

Jayhawker Soule replied : “Interesting history.” (post #8)


I agree. History is incredibly interesting and important in illuminating the present and helping us understand the basis for current beliefs.

Your recommendation of David Halivni was wonderful as he is a Jewish rabbi of some import and his (and other historians like him) historical conclusions have significance for anyone who wants to understand the motives for Rabbinic Judaism to create the legend of “Oral Torah” as a mechanism to claim authority for the many rules and traditions which they, themselves created, (the “traditions of men” as Jesus called them).




2) REGARDING THE USE OF THE TERM "RABBINIC JUDAISM" BY SCHOLARS AND HISTORIANS

@Shaul said : “The term "rabbinic Judaism" is a pleonasm. ALL Judaism has rabbis. Jesus of Nazareth claimed the moniker of rabbi. "Rabbinic" means from or of rabbis. So all forms of Judaism and Christianity are rabbinic. I realize that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is commonly used.” (post #9)

Hi Shaul.

You are confused. We are using a historical term and scholars nomenclature. The historical scholars use of the term is a homonym that has a different meaning than you are using.

When scholars and historians use the term “rabbinic Judaism”, they are NOT (depending on the context) simply referring to a “Judaism with rabbis” (a neoplasm), but they are in this case, (depending on context) referring to the type of Judaism where rabbis themselves created religious rules and laws and presented them as an “Oral Torah” from Moses and Ezra and others. These are also called "the traditions of men".

Scholars and historians must have terms distinguishing between the various Jewish religions which non historians tend to lump together under the term “Judaism”.

For example : If forum readers simply google “Rabbinic Judaism”, the results will provide context as to how scholars and historians are actually using such terms as Rabbinic Judaism, Classical Judaism, Medieval Judaism, etc. For example, let me give you some of the results google will display in the cut and pastes below :

The examples that I cut and pasted above should provide additional context regarding the conextually correct usage of the term "Rabbinic Judaism" in specific historical usage.



3) REGARDING THE HISTORY OF THE ORAL LAW IN RABBINIC JUDAISM

Shaul said : "The Oral Law is identified within the Written Torah. It was not "invented" later." Post #9)


This is a good example of what scholars, such as Rabbi Halivni are describing.

While the adherents of Orthodox Rabbinical Judaism have been taught to accept the idea that the rules and traditions created by the rabbis are actually from individuals such as Moses himself or Ezra, etc, Historical Scholars such as the wonderful Rabbi Halivi (himself a Jew) point out that this claim is not tenable or sustainable HISTORICALLY.

It is good advertisement.
It was a good mechanism to try to clothe the rabbinic traditions in authority.

But it was never accurate to claim that God dictated the hundreds of later Rabbinic rules and traditions to Moses. Moses was given the 10 commandments but not the 613 commandments that were innovations and additions by the later rabbinical Jewish religion.

This is the basis of my original O.P. and it's question to see if ANYONE has more actual, real, authentic historical data regarding the creation of the oral Torah.

Rabbi Halivni points out that there is insufficient historical evidence to make this claim, yet there is significant evidence that this claim is false. It was a good advertisement for the masses the rabbis wanted to influence and it was a good mechanism by which to claim authority for their innovative traditions, but it is not accurate history as far as can be determined.

In any case Shaul and Jayhawker Soule. I hope your own spiritual journies are wonderful and insightful and peaceful.


Clear
ακδρω

 

[Shaul]

Hi @Jayhawker Soule and @Shaul


1) REGARDING THE ADVENT OF RABBINIC JUDAISM

Jayhawker Soule asked who the "Jahwists" were :

Clear said : “Jahwism is the name scholars apply to the ancient religion of Israel, the religion of Abraham, Moses, etc.
Rabbinic Judaism is the religion that ultimately was created, and was adopted by (and thus replaced) the early religions of Israel as the predominant religion of Judah (and remnants of other tribes who were mixed with Judah).

Rabbinic Judaism coexisted with other Jewish denominations such as the Sadducees, Essenes, etc. However, After the loss of the final temple in Jerusalem, the Sadducees and their religion declined in import and the Pharisees and their religion increased in dominance and the later Orthodox rabbinic Judaism is seen as having inherited dominance as a religion of the Jews.” (post #7)

Jayhawker Soule replied : “Interesting history.” (post #8)


I agree. History is incredibly interesting and important in illuminating the present and helping us understand the basis for current beliefs.

Your recommendation of David Halivni was wonderful as he is a Jewish rabbi of some import and his (and other historians like him) historical conclusions have significance for anyone who wants to understand the motives for Rabbinic Judaism to create the legend of “Oral Torah” as a mechanism to claim authority for the many rules and traditions which they, themselves created, (the “traditions of men” as Jesus called them).




2) REGARDING THE USE OF THE TERM "RABBINIC JUDAISM" BY SCHOLARS AND HISTORIANS

@Shaul said : “The term "rabbinic Judaism" is a pleonasm. ALL Judaism has rabbis. Jesus of Nazareth claimed the moniker of rabbi. "Rabbinic" means from or of rabbis. So all forms of Judaism and Christianity are rabbinic. I realize that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is commonly used.” (post #9)

Hi Shaul.

You are confused. We are using a historical term and scholars nomenclature. The historical scholars use of the term is a homonym that has a different meaning than you are using.

When scholars and historians use the term “rabbinic Judaism”, they are NOT (depending on the context) simply referring to a “Judaism with rabbis” (a neoplasm), but they are in this case, (depending on context) referring to the type of Judaism where rabbis themselves created religious rules and laws and presented them as an “Oral Torah” from Moses and Ezra and others. These are also called "the traditions of men".

Scholars and historians must have terms distinguishing between the various Jewish religions which non historians tend to lump together under the term “Judaism”.

For example : If forum readers simply google “Rabbinic Judaism”, the results will provide context as to how scholars and historians are actually using such terms as Rabbinic Judaism, Classical Judaism, Medieval Judaism, etc. For example, let me give you some of the results google will display in the cut and pastes below :

View attachment 72821
View attachment 72822
View attachment 72823
View attachment 72824
View attachment 72825
View attachment 72826
View attachment 72827
View attachment 72828View attachment 72829

The examples that I cut and pasted above should provide additional context regarding the conextually correct usage of the term "Rabbinic Judaism" in specific historical usage.



3) REGARDING THE HISTORY OF THE ORAL LAW IN RABBINIC JUDAISM

Shaul said : "The Oral Law is identified within the Written Torah. It was not "invented" later." Post #9)


This is a good example of what scholars, such as Rabbi Halivni are describing.

While the adherents of Orthodox Rabbinical Judaism have been taught to accept the idea that the rules and traditions created by the rabbis are actually from individuals such as Moses himself or Ezra, etc, Historical Scholars such as the wonderful Rabbi Halivi (himself a Jew) point out that this claim is not tenable or sustainable HISTORICALLY.

It is good advertisement.
It was a good mechanism to try to clothe the rabbinic traditions in authority.

But it was never accurate to claim that God dictated the hundreds of later Rabbinic rules and traditions to Moses. Moses was given the 10 commandments but not the 613 commandments that were innovations and additions by the later rabbinical Jewish religion.

This is the basis of my original O.P. and it's question to see if ANYONE has more actual, real, authentic historical data regarding the creation of the oral Torah.

Rabbi Halivni points out that there is insufficient historical evidence to make this claim, yet there is significant evidence that this claim is false. It was a good advertisement for the masses the rabbis wanted to influence and it was a good mechanism by which to claim authority for their innovative traditions, but it is not accurate history as far as can be determined.

In any case Shaul and Jayhawker Soule. I hope your own spiritual journies are wonderful and insightful and peaceful.


Clear
ακδρω

I already noted that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is prevalent and that doesn't make it correct. (Just as anti Semite is etymologically incorrect.) I also already knew how it is defined. What I wrote, and what I stand by, is that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is etymologically incorrect as used. In standard English "rabbinic" is defined as "relating to rabbis or to Jewish law or teachings" per the Oxford dictionary. As I have already noted all extant forms of Judaism are rabbinic. It would also extend to any Judaism espoused by Jesus of Nazareth. The term is simply incorrect. One presumes that what users of "rabbinic Judaism" actually mean is "halachal Judaism". Which would be the precise term. But they can't bring themselves to use that. Because to do so would imprimatur halacha which they are afraid and refuse to do.

Jesus claimed to be a rabbi. He and Christians claim that he teaches Judaism. Ergo what he espouses would rabbinic Judaism.

 

[John D. Brey]

I already noted that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is prevalent and that doesn't make it correct. (Just as anti Semite is etymologically incorrect.) I also already knew how it is defined. What I wrote, and what I stand by, is that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is etymologically incorrect as used. In standard English "rabbinic" is defined as "relating to rabbis or to Jewish law or teachings" per the Oxford dictionary. As I have already noted all extant forms of Judaism are rabbinic. It would also extend to any Judaism espoused by Jesus of Nazareth. The term is simply incorrect. One presumes that what users of "rabbinic Judaism" actually mean is "halachal Judaism". Which would be the precise term. But they can't bring themselves to use that. Because to do so would imprimatur halacha which they are afraid and refuse to do.

Jesus claimed to be a rabbi. He and Christians claim that he teaches Judaism. Ergo what he espouses would rabbinic Judaism.

Maybe "Pharisaic Judaism" would better circumscribe the concepts that seem to be in the cross hairs of the thread-starter?



John

 

[rosends]

But it was never accurate to claim that God dictated the hundreds of later Rabbinic rules and traditions to Moses. Moses was given the 10 commandments but not the 613 commandments that were innovations and additions by the later rabbinical Jewish religion.

Maimonides, in his itemizing of the 613 laws cites written verses for each one, so to say that the 613 were later innovations is wrong. The claim to the number 613, and the specific understanding of what counted towards that might have been a later wrinkle, but the written text explicitly lists hundreds of laws. So to dismiss the idea of more than 10 (not called commandments textually, but statements) is wrong.

The text, though, makes reference to laws that are not written in it (the most famous being in Deut 12:21) and uses words and concepts that are not defined within when it lists its commandments, and yet there is no record of the written explanation or any question by the people, demanding explication. Therefore, there must have been a complementary set of explanations and rules which made the written text make sense. To dismiss that is to say that people lived only by a written text which lacked specificity and clarity on its face.

When the sages set the oral law (that had been passed down, dating back to Sinai) they were not innovating but codifying. They had already been living by those laws. References to certain non-textual practices in Proverbs and Ezekiel show that ritual existed in the practical sense so there had to be an understanding that put theory into the real world. If you want to consign any and all of this to a conspiracy of people to invent and retcon, feel free. Judaism is a religion of faith -- in the texts, oral and written.

There are, of course, additional categories of law that ARE clearly rabbinic. Much discussion in the talmud centers around the distinction between those types of laws and the implications. But you are starting from a position which dismisses an entire religious approach because you have decided that your vision of scholarship holds sway. That's fine, but you will be disappointed if you look at something guided by thousands of years of faith and demand a type of explanation that satisfies you in a non-faith context. Good luck.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE SCHOLARS AND HISTORIANS USE OF THE TERM "RABBINIC JUDAISM'

Shaul said : I already noted that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is prevalent and that doesn't make it correct. … I also already knew how it is defined. (post #12)

OK. So, if you knew how it is defined in the standard english dictionaries and in the standard historical nomenclature and in the scholarly texts then you should have known that it does NOT refer to “Judaisms with rabbis”.

Additionally, if you knew the dictionaries and historians and scholars use the standard term “Rabbinic Judaism” to refer to Jewish denominations that believe rules and traditions created by rabbis were dictated by Moses, Ezra, etc anciently to distinguish those Jewish denominations from “Non-Rabbinic Judaism” Jewish denominations that do NOT believe that the rules and traditions created by the rabbis were actually dictated by Moses there is no need to have assumed it simply referred to “Judaisms that have rabbis.” It does not.

You are certainly welcome to make up your own personal word for Rabbinic Judaism (a pleonasm to your mind) and allow dictionaries and scholars and historical texts to use continue using the standardized term "Rabbinic Judaism" (a homonym to the rest of the educated world).

At least @John D. Brey had a suggestion that Maybe "Pharisaic Judaism" would better circumscribe the concepts that seem to be in the cross hairs of the thread-starter? (#13).
However, I don’t think that would please everyone either and it would require a world-wide change in scholastic and historical nomenclature.

I’m not sure how your complain about how historians and scholars use the term "Rabbinic Judaism" is relevant to the actual historical problem created by the lack of historical data to support the claim for an “Orah Torah” espoused by Rabbinic Judaism? Is it even relevant?

How does any of this relate to the O.P. and the lack of historical support for a theoretical “oral torah” dictated by Moses and passed on by memorization through others over the eons?



2) REGARDING THE RABBINIC CLAIM OF AN "ORAL TORAH" BEING AN INNOVATION FROM LATER PERIODS THAN MOSES

Clear said : "Once the rabbinic religion arose and replaced Jahwism as the dominant religion of Israel, the rabbis needed some way to clothe the many non-torah rules and prohibitions in some sort of cloak of authority and the creation of the myth of an “oral Torah” fit this purpose very well. IF the myth / legend of an "oral torah" is untrue, then the claims that the many rabbinic additions and innovations to the ancient Law of Moses (which the messiah Jesus called "the traditions of men") are indeed interpretations, innovations, inventions, etc. made by the rabbis and do not represent the Law of Moses." (Post #5)

Rosends replied : "Maimonides, in his itemizing of the 613 laws cites written verses for each one, so to say that the 613 were later innovations is wrong. The claim to the number 613, and the specific understanding of what counted towards that might have been a later wrinkle, but the written text explicitly lists hundreds of laws. So to dismiss the idea of more than 10 (not called commandments textually, but statements) is wrong." (post #14)

Look at your own quote. You are making my point regarding the time periods for me and you are SUPPORTING Rabbi Halivnis point rather than undermining it.

You used Maimonides (from the middle ages 1100-1200s) when you pointed out “Maimonides, in his itemizing of the 613 laws cites written verses for each one, so to say that the 613 were later innovations is wrong.” The fact that Maimonides was approx. 1150 A.D. makes his codifications about TWO and ONE HALF MILLENNIA LATER than Sinai. 2500 years after Moses. This means that the process of creating rules and codifying an Oral Law by Maimonides (2500 years later) were “later innovations” and not concurrent with Moses.

When Rabbi Halivni pointed out that the concept of a revealed “Oral Torah appears hardly at all in the classical rabbinic literature whereas one would expect the references and allusions to be virtually ubiquitous if this were truly the fundamental doctrine of the rabbis”.

And speaking of those statements that MAY be used to support an “Oral Torah”, Rabbi Halivni observes, “most can be interpreted figuratively and non-literally as statements about the authority of received tradition.” AND, those passages that seem authentically to suggest a detailed Oral Las at Sinai, most are attributed to the greatest proponents of the Mishnah…” (such as Maimonides....)




3) IT WAS THE GREAT COMMENTATORS OF LATER AGES THAT ORGANIZED RABBINIC RULES AND CODIFIED THEM UNDER THE GUISE OF AN "ORAL TORAH".

The great historian-rabbi Halivni also points out that it was “The great commentators of the Middle Ages adopted, developed and promulgates the concept of an all-inclusive, dual revelation – written law and oral law, revealed side by side.”

You yourself gave us a great example of this principle by using your reference to Maimonides from the middle ages... approx 1150 a.d.)




Rosends said : “The text, though, makes reference to laws that are not written in it (the most famous being in Deut 12:21) and uses words and concepts that are not defined within when it lists its commandments, and yet there is no record of the written explanation or any question by the people, demanding explication. “ (post #14)

I very much agree with this statement. There is much in the Old testament text that is unclear and undefined and is left without sufficient explanation. This lack of clarity and lack of definition gives us a perfectly logical reason WHY the rabbis felt the need to interpret unclear text, determine what it meant to them and offer that explanation and subsequent rules regarding what obedience to the text meant to their disciples.
Yes, the rabbis created their own explanations, their own explanations and laws and rules. This is then, a set of teachings and rules that are rabbinic, but they are not an "Oral Torah" given by Moses for memorization.



Read your next sentence : “Therefore, there must have been a complementary set of explanations and rules which made the written text make sense. “. (Rosends, post #14)

I agree with you that the early sages and rabbis agreed felt a need to create a complementary set of explanations and rules which made the written text make sense according to their own beliefs and their own interpretation.



Rosends said : “When the sages set the oral law (that had been passed down, dating back to Sinai) they were not innovating but codifying.” (post #14)

The claim that Moses dictated the laws created by rabbis and that these man-made laws were an "Orah Torah" IS the act of innovating. They are creating new dogma that never existed, creating new rules and presenting them as authoritative. This is an innovation as well.

While the claim that Oral law had been dictated to Moses who passed on this vast amount of rules and intricate laws may be good advertising or good DOGMA, it makes for very poor HISTORY.

So, as long as the claim remains in the world of DOGMA, the claim can survive.
However, if we enter the world of HISTORY, then the claim cannot survive historically.
I think this is one of points of the wonderful historians Rabbi Halivni, Rabbi Glasner and other historians are trying to make.

In any case @Shaul and @rosends, I hope your spiritual journies are wonderful and satisfying. Thank you so much for your points.

Does ANYONE have any actual early historical data (say from the classical Rabbinic age…) regarding how the Oral Torah was created and codified at it’s earliest stage)

Clear
ειτζνεω

 

[Shaul]

1) REGARDING THE SCHOLARS AND HISTORIANS USE OF THE TERM "RABBINIC JUDAISM'

Shaul said : I already noted that the term "rabbinic Judaism" is prevalent and that doesn't make it correct. … I also already knew how it is defined. (post #12)

OK. So, if you knew how it is defined in the standard english dictionaries and in the standard historical nomenclature and in the scholarly texts then you should have known that it does NOT refer to “Judaisms with rabbis”.

Additionally, if you knew the dictionaries and historians and scholars use the standard term “Rabbinic Judaism” to refer to Jewish denominations that believe rules and traditions created by rabbis were dictated by Moses, Ezra, etc anciently to distinguish those Jewish denominations from “Non-Rabbinic Judaism” Jewish denominations that do NOT believe that the rules and traditions created by the rabbis were actually dictated by Moses there is no need to have assumed it simply referred to “Judaisms that have rabbis.” It does not.

You are certainly welcome to make up your own personal word for Rabbinic Judaism (a pleonasm to your mind) and allow dictionaries and scholars and historical texts to use continue using the standardized term "Rabbinic Judaism" (a homonym to the rest of the educated world).

At least @John D. Brey had a suggestion that Maybe "Pharisaic Judaism" would better circumscribe the concepts that seem to be in the cross hairs of the thread-starter? (#13).
However, I don’t think that would please everyone either and it would require a world-wide change in scholastic and historical nomenclature.

I’m not sure how your complain about how historians and scholars use the term "Rabbinic Judaism" is relevant to the actual historical problem created by the lack of historical data to support the claim for an “Orah Torah” espoused by Rabbinic Judaism? Is it even relevant?

How does any of this relate to the O.P. and the lack of historical support for a theoretical “oral torah” dictated by Moses and passed on by memorization through others over the eons?



2) REGARDING THE RABBINIC CLAIM OF AN "ORAL TORAH" BEING AN INNOVATION FROM LATER PERIODS THAN MOSES

Clear said : "Once the rabbinic religion arose and replaced Jahwism as the dominant religion of Israel, the rabbis needed some way to clothe the many non-torah rules and prohibitions in some sort of cloak of authority and the creation of the myth of an “oral Torah” fit this purpose very well. IF the myth / legend of an "oral torah" is untrue, then the claims that the many rabbinic additions and innovations to the ancient Law of Moses (which the messiah Jesus called "the traditions of men") are indeed interpretations, innovations, inventions, etc. made by the rabbis and do not represent the Law of Moses." (Post #5)

Rosends replied : "Maimonides, in his itemizing of the 613 laws cites written verses for each one, so to say that the 613 were later innovations is wrong. The claim to the number 613, and the specific understanding of what counted towards that might have been a later wrinkle, but the written text explicitly lists hundreds of laws. So to dismiss the idea of more than 10 (not called commandments textually, but statements) is wrong." (post #14)

Look at your own quote. You are making my point regarding the time periods for me and you are SUPPORTING Rabbi Halivnis point rather than undermining it.

You used Maimonides (from the middle ages 1100-1200s) when you pointed out “Maimonides, in his itemizing of the 613 laws cites written verses for each one, so to say that the 613 were later innovations is wrong.” The fact that Maimonides was approx. 1150 A.D. makes his codifications about TWO and ONE HALF MILLENNIA LATER than Sinai. 2500 years after Moses. This means that the process of creating rules and codifying an Oral Law by Maimonides (2500 years later) were “later innovations” and not concurrent with Moses.

When Rabbi Halivni pointed out that the concept of a revealed “Oral Torah appears hardly at all in the classical rabbinic literature whereas one would expect the references and allusions to be virtually ubiquitous if this were truly the fundamental doctrine of the rabbis”.

And speaking of those statements that MAY be used to support an “Oral Torah”, Rabbi Halivni observes, “most can be interpreted figuratively and non-literally as statements about the authority of received tradition.” AND, those passages that seem authentically to suggest a detailed Oral Las at Sinai, most are attributed to the greatest proponents of the Mishnah…” (such as Maimonides....)




3) IT WAS THE GREAT COMMENTATORS OF LATER AGES THAT ORGANIZED RABBINIC RULES AND CODIFIED THEM UNDER THE GUISE OF AN "ORAL TORAH".

The great historian-rabbi Halivni also points out that it was “The great commentators of the Middle Ages adopted, developed and promulgates the concept of an all-inclusive, dual revelation – written law and oral law, revealed side by side.”

You yourself gave us a great example of this principle by using your reference to Maimonides from the middle ages... approx 1150 a.d.)




Rosends said : “The text, though, makes reference to laws that are not written in it (the most famous being in Deut 12:21) and uses words and concepts that are not defined within when it lists its commandments, and yet there is no record of the written explanation or any question by the people, demanding explication. “ (post #14)

I very much agree with this statement. There is much in the Old testament text that is unclear and undefined and is left without sufficient explanation. This lack of clarity and lack of definition gives us a perfectly logical reason WHY the rabbis felt the need to interpret unclear text, determine what it meant to them and offer that explanation and subsequent rules regarding what obedience to the text meant to their disciples.
Yes, the rabbis created their own explanations, their own explanations and laws and rules. This is then, a set of teachings and rules that are rabbinic, but they are not an "Oral Torah" given by Moses for memorization.



Read your next sentence : “Therefore, there must have been a complementary set of explanations and rules which made the written text make sense. “. (Rosends, post #14)

I agree with you that the early sages and rabbis agreed felt a need to create a complementary set of explanations and rules which made the written text make sense according to their own beliefs and their own interpretation.



Rosends said : “When the sages set the oral law (that had been passed down, dating back to Sinai) they were not innovating but codifying.” (post #14)

The claim that Moses dictated the laws created by rabbis and that these man-made laws were an "Orah Torah" IS the act of innovating. They are creating new dogma that never existed, creating new rules and presenting them as authoritative. This is an innovation as well.

While the claim that Oral law had been dictated to Moses who passed on this vast amount of rules and intricate laws may be good advertising or good DOGMA, it makes for very poor HISTORY.

So, as long as the claim remains in the world of DOGMA, the claim can survive.
However, if we enter the world of HISTORY, then the claim cannot survive historically.
I think this is one of points of the wonderful historians Rabbi Halivni, Rabbi Glasner and other historians are trying to make.

In any case @Shaul and @rosends, I hope your spiritual journies are wonderful and satisfying. Thank you so much for your points.

Does ANYONE have any actual early historical data (say from the classical Rabbinic age…) regarding how the Oral Torah was created and codified at it’s earliest stage)

Clear
ειτζνεω

A minority of one that has the truth is still right regardless of the legions without it. I am quite correct in my rejection of the term "rabbinic Judaism" based on etymology. Nothing you have written changes that. Furthermore I can know and understand how ignorant masses use the term while still validly rejecting it.

Before you continue in rejecting the Oral Law you better think twice. Since both the Christian New Testament and Jesus himself affirmed it.

 

[rosends]

You used Maimonides (from the middle ages 1100-1200s) when you pointed out “Maimonides, in his itemizing of the 613 laws cites written verses for each one, so to say that the 613 were later innovations is wrong.” The fact that Maimonides was approx. 1150 A.D. makes his codifications about TWO and ONE HALF MILLENNIA LATER than Sinai. 2500 years after Moses. This means that the process of creating rules and codifying an Oral Law by Maimonides (2500 years later) were “later innovations” and not concurrent with Moses.

Then you aren't reading what I wrote. Maimonides pointed to textual evidence and citation of black letter law. That it was listed years later doesn't mean that it didn't exist beforehand. The biblical text that reads "and God commanded" establishes a commandment before anyone says "here's a list of where it says that God commanded." The 613 are taken not from anyone's later innovation but from the actual text.

When Rabbi Halivni pointed out that the concept of a revealed “Oral Torah appears hardly at all in the classical rabbinic literature whereas one would expect the references and allusions to be virtually ubiquitous if this were truly the fundamental doctrine of the rabbis”.

And speaking of those statements that MAY be used to support an “Oral Torah”, Rabbi Halivni observes, “most can be interpreted figuratively and non-literally as statements about the authority of received tradition.” AND, those passages that seem authentically to suggest a detailed Oral Las at Sinai, most are attributed to the greatest proponents of the Mishnah…” (such as Maimonides....)

That's nice. Halivni is a fine scholar with his own beliefs and agenda His background and training lead him in one particular direction. But it is one that is at odds with a whole slew of other rabbinic voices who don't subscribe to Conservative Judaism.

There is much in the Old testament text that is unclear and undefined and is left without sufficient explanation. This lack of clarity and lack of definition gives us a perfectly logical reason WHY the rabbis felt the need to interpret unclear text, determine what it meant to them and offer that explanation and subsequent rules regarding what obedience to the text meant to their disciples.

But that puts the cart before the horse. You have decided that this is all interpretation therefore you say that the lack of clarity is resolved by later interpretation. I have decided that the lack of written clarity with concurrent clear practice is proof of contemporaneous explication as a perfectly logical conclusion to draw.

Yes, the rabbis created their own explanations, their own explanations and laws and rules. This is then, a set of teachings and rules that are rabbinic, but they are not an "Oral Torah" given by Moses for memorization.

That is, infeed, your opinion and starting position.

I agree with you that the early sages and rabbis agreed felt a need to create a complementary set of explanations and rules which made the written text make sense according to their own beliefs and their own interpretation.

You "agree" with what I didn't say. You see this as an explanation for a later creation of explanations but I see this as evidence of a preexisting set of explanations. Underlining your position doesn't make it any ore than your opinion (bolstered by the scholar of your choice).

The claim that Moses dictated the laws created by rabbis and that these man-made laws were an "Orah Torah" IS the act of innovating. They are creating new dogma that never existed, creating new rules and presenting them as authoritative. This is an innovation as well.

Claiming that people practiced in the absence of clarity and that later, people made up laws is the innovation. You are creating a post-facto rationalization to replace faith that there was already a set of explanations. Somehow, for thousands of years, people didn't have the belief you have -- they practiced based on what they accepted as normative, authoritative and Sinai-sourced. You are innovating by demanding that their lives and practices are a lie. The evidence of practice indicates that the laws existed well before they were written down. They were the status quo, with the laws only written down when there was an existential threat and a concern that the oral texts would be lost. You won't find historical evidence that says that the oral suddenly springs into existence at some later time.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

A minority of one that has the truth is still right regardless of the legions without it.

1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT DICTIONARIES AND HISTORIANS AND SCHOLARS AND WORLD LITERATURE THAT USE THE TERM “RABBINIC JUDAISM” ARE ALL INCORRECT.

So, do I understand you correctly? Your position is that the rest of the entire literary world with it’s historians, it’s universities, it dictionaries, its scholars, etc are in error while you have the truth?

You realize, do you not, that readers can simply google "Rabbinic Judaism" and access world-wide usage of the term "Rabbinic Judaism" as a proper term for a type of Judaism?

For further examples of how the term "Rabbinic Judaism" is used :

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO REGARDING THE HISTORICAL AND SCHOLARS AND DICTIONARIES AND UNIVERSITY AND JEWISH LITERARY USE OF "RABBINIC JUDAISM"

So, Shaul.

If it is you against the rest of the world ("the legions", as you put it), if all of the scholars and universities and dictionaries and Jewish authors and the rest of the world are using the term "Rabbinic Judaism" incorrectly, then what can the rest of the world do to satisfy your sense of correctness?

Do you think your reluctance to use this standard nomenclature of Universities and scholars and dictionaries, etc. is appropriate?
I mean, is your theory even relevant to the historical question I am asking in the O.P.?
Do you actually have significant historical data regarding the earliest form of the Oral Torah you say existed?

In any case Shaul, whether you like scholarly language or whether you think the dictionaries and universities and other Jewish writers and historians are incorrect in their nomenclature, I hope your life is good and happy and wonderful.


Clear
ειτωειω

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends and @Shaul


1) THE HISTORICAL PROBLEM IS LACK OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM MOSES DICTATED THE TRADITIONS OF RABBINIC JUDAISM

Rosends said : "Maimonides pointed to textual evidence and citation of black letter law. That it was listed years later doesn't mean that it didn't exist beforehand." (post #17)

Again you are making my point. Maimonides existed approx. 2500 years after Moses and Maimonides refers to TEXTS that he is organizing and codifying. (Not an ORAL law, but TEXTS). TEXTS DID exist by Maimonides’ time and he was dependent upon texts and the interpretations of the texts and his own interpretations.

And who produced those texts? Historically, it was Rabbis and Sages of an earlier age produced those texts, Not Moses.
That is the problem for the claim. There is evidence that Rabbis and Sages passed on Written text but there is no historical evidence of an ORAL Law dictated by Moses that is the same set of laws presented by Rabbinic Judaism.


2) AGAIN, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS A DEARTH OF HISTORICAL DATA SUPPORTING A DICTATED, ORAL TORAH BUT NO LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT MANY OF THE RABBINICAL RULES AND TEACHINGS WERE CREATED BY EARLY RABBIS (THE TRADITIONS OF MEN)

Rosends said : "Halivni is a fine scholar with his own beliefs and agenda His background and training lead him in one particular direction. But it is one that is at odds with a whole slew of other rabbinic voices who don't subscribe to Conservative Judaism." (post #17)

The reason the thread started out talking of Halivni because that was the reference Jayhawker Soule suggested to me.

Multiple historians have brought up the concept of Oral Torah and what historians are looking at (including multiple historians who ARE Rabbinic Jews). The problem is that the claim to have an oral law which was dictated by Moses and handed down by memorization is HISTORICALLY incoherent.

I’ve asked for any historical information from before the classical period, ANY evidence that an Oral Torah existed and the fact that there is a dearth of supporting evidence for an oral Torah but much against it is the historical problem.

We are not supposing the Rabbis were evil or wrong to try to fill in the gaps of information, or that they were wrong in coming up with rules they thought made sense to them.

The problem is if Rabbis interpreted the small amount of laws such as the ten commandments and created additional rules and additional commandments by their own interpretation and exegesis and then presented these man-made traditions as having been dictated by Moses (as Maimonides said), then this is historically incoherent.

I understand your logic that rabbis felt they HAD to make some sense out of unclear or illogical text. That is not a problem because I agree with you on this specific point. The problem is creating these rules and then presenting them as a dictation from Moses when they were really created by rabbis.



Rosends said : “You see this as an explanation for a later creation of explanations but I see this as evidence of a preexisting set of explanations. Underlining your position doesn't make it any ore than your opinion (bolstered by the scholar of your choice).” (post #17)

I honestly can’t tell what you are trying to say here.



3) THE HISTORICAL PROBLEM IS NOT LACK OF CLARITY FOR CLASSICAL JUDAISM, BUT RATHER A LACK OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR MOSES DICTATING THE ORAL LAWS

Rosends said : “Claiming that people practiced in the absence of clarity and that later, people made up laws is the innovation. You are creating a post-facto rationalization to replace faith that there was already a set of explanations.” (post #17)

History is not necessarily indicating Rabbinic Judaism did not have clarity.

In fact there were so many rules about washing the hands, ritual impurity, etc that their lives and ritual expectations were spelled out by rabbinical laws in even the minutiae of their lives.

Instead, what history points out is that these rules and laws and rituals were created by the rabbis and sages, etc and were not, historically, a set of oral laws on minutiae dictated by Moses.



4) RABBINIC JUDAISM TAUGHT A TRADITIONAL SET OF LAWS BEFORE THEY WERE CODIFIED IN THE TALMUD

Rosends said : “The evidence of practice indicates that the laws existed well before they were written down. “

I am looking for historical evidence to show these Rabbinical traditions were dictated by Moses and transmitted by memorization to other sages or rabbis rather than created over time by rabbis and sages and then presented as having come from the Mouth of Moses.

Do you have any evidence FROM ANY HISTORICALLY PARALLEL TIME PERIOD to show the 613 commandments of Rabbinic Judaism AND all of the minutiae of rules and traditions were actually dictated by Moses and memorized by Sages who passed them on?

If you have historical evidence, now is the time to offer it.


In any case, I very much appreciate your willingness to talk about these issues. I know it may be uncomfortable and my purpose is not to simply bother you but to see if anyone actually DOES have any historical evidence from the classical period that the Jewish Claim to have an Oral Torah from Moses has any historical validity.

Thank you Rosends.

Clear
ειτωφιω

 

[Shaul]

POST ONE OF TWO




1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT DICTIONARIES AND HISTORIANS AND SCHOLARS AND WORLD LITERATURE THAT USE THE TERM “RABBINIC JUDAISM” ARE ALL INCORRECT.

So, do I understand you correctly? Your position is that the rest of the entire literary world with it’s historians, it’s universities, it dictionaries, its scholars, etc are in error while you have the truth?

You realize, do you not, that readers can simply google "Rabbinic Judaism" and access world-wide usage of the term "Rabbinic Judaism" as a proper term for a type of Judaism?

For further examples of how the term "Rabbinic Judaism" is used :

View attachment 73023View attachment 73024View attachment 73025View attachment 73026View attachment 73027View attachment 73028View attachment 73029View attachment 73030View attachment 73031View attachment 73032

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Actually many of the sources you cite agree with my definition, particularly the non-Christian sources. To wit, it refers to the branches of Judaism which have rabbis. Since all extant branches of Judaism (ignoring perhaps Karaites) have rabbis, the term is a pleonasm unless one is trying to differentiate it from Priestly, Sadducean, Essene, or Karaite Judaism. There are Christian sources which want to co-opt the term and convert into a straw man, but they are wrong to do so. The real issue is how Christians want to delegitimize the authority of the Oral Law and the Talmud. Not because the Oral Law isn't authoritative. But because it is independent of Christianity and it is a threat to Christianity's legitimacy. Christians can't theologically permit the Oral Law to exist because they can't access it and can't subjugate it. Yet the Oral Law is scripture. Regardless of whether that it an issue for Christians.