Another request for information: oral Torah vs. human tradition

Yes, I'm still working away on an argument map despite the lack of reasonable functionality on the Faithlife site. I've come across a common assertion in conservative resources for which I find no one trying to justify. Do you know of any source - book or article - that explains why oral Torah is assumed to be identical to/part of human tradition rather than there being two independent things? No discussion -- just references.

Note: I have been concentrating my readings recently on conservative resources so don't go reading anything into "conservative" beyond these forums are where I am most apt to find people with these resources.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Do you know of any source - book or article - that explains why oral Torah is assumed to be identical to/part of human tradition rather than there being two independent things? No discussion -- just references.

Holwerda, David E. “Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, Year A.” In The Lectionary Commentary: Theological Exegesis for Sunday’s Texts, Volume Three, edited by Roger E. Van Harn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.

&

Harold W. Hoehner, Philip W. Comfort, and Peter H. Davids, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon., vol. 16 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 197.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1197716#Comment_1197716

Thankyou. These are useful data points especially for "traditions of the elders" and "apostolic tradition" but I am looking for something very specific -- the equation of traditions of the elders to oral Torah ... I find it assumed or asserted but never justified ... and I can easily produce arguments against the equating but need to produce one for it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1197720#Comment_1197720

Carefully not discussing. And no offense, but you're tossing verbage from different time periods around? I didn't understand, either, until Fredriksen pointed out that 'oral Torah' was a loosening of requirements ... and began listing them out.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1197734#Comment_1197734

Which Fredriksen resource? The clue as to the period of the term is also useful ... it was a Kabbalahist who introduced me to oral Torah which adds another level for confusion.

Do you know of any source - book or article - that explains why oral Torah is assumed to be identical to/part of human tradition rather than there being two independent things?

I won't pretend to know the answer because I don't think I fully grasp your question, but I did recently read Walton & Sandy's "The Lost World of Scripture" and I found it both fascinating and convincing: https://www.logos.com/product/163460/the-lost-world-of-scripture-ancient-literary-culture-and-biblical-authority

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1197741#Comment_1197741

It's on my list to read. I'll move it up a bit. I fear I'm one who easily gets distracted by rabbit trails when an author flagrantly abuses logic -- the issue that sent me off on this track.

I've tried several different searches of my library and found many different things. Not sure any of them really apply here but this may...

==========

Salmon, Marilyn J. Preaching without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006.

"There is a sharp criticism of the “tradition of the elders” (7:5), which is another name for the Oral Law.^22"Footnote: Josephus uses this term for the Oral Torah. See Jewish Antiquities 13:297. So does Paul, in Gal. 1:14.

===========

https://www.logos.com/product/43170/the-gospel-of-john-a-commentary

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary & 2. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.

"We may safely leave aside discussion of the concept of “oral law” here. Although rabbinic traditions eventually came to be identified with the law itself as a sort of “oral law,”²⁷⁸ and viewed oral tradition as greater than written Torah²⁷⁹ (because oral law encompassed and explained written law),²⁸⁰ it is debated how widely spread this development was in the Johannine period.^281"

===========

Too much stuff/information. To be honest, I'm not sure how much of what I found would fit your request. I think most of what I found doesn't "Explain why", it just continues to "Assume".

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1197749#Comment_1197749

Very helpful - one confirms what I was uncomfortable about is widespread; the other gives me some very good clues as to how to track down the unsubstantiated assumption as it directly contradicts another source I have. Not to mention Salmon and Keener disagree on the relevance of Philo on the point.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1197734#Comment_1197734

you're tossing verbage from different time periods around

Is this better at avoiding anachronous language? "The accurate distinction is between “torah shebeʾal peh” Torah by memory (oral Torah) vs. “torah shebikhtav” written Torah."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1197762#Comment_1197762

Is this better at avoiding anachronous language? "The accurate distinction is between “torah shebeʾal peh” Torah by memory (oral Torah) vs. “torah shebikhtav” written Torah."

Well, again not offending (written vs oral, is so amenable to offending), but I assume it's what you meant to mean! Your first question seemed to refer to the sinful Pharisees (conservative Christian lens) who were targeting sinless Jesus, using their own rules (not 'the law'). Like that. My comment suggested that the Smooth-Things-Seekers (Pharisees) were actually the easy-going-use-traditions-not-the-law-but-oral-law, as per the DSS criticisms of the Temple operators, and thus definitionally the human-traditions people (ergo your questioned equation).

This probably needs a semantic diagram!

But I'm guessing (as you mentioned) you're later in the jewish sequence (maybe around 700-1000ce)? Of course, Roy's quotes are another presumed period (John's gospel), recognizing there is hardly much to speculate with (an earlier posting this week).

Added (to further confuse; please ignore):

One of the big latter-day mysteries is the Joel prophesy (that is used at Pentecost, with LXX changes), that essentially destroys the priesthood, handing the Holy Spirit over to everyday people (women, elder ones, even kids ... quite revolutionary for both Joel-times, as well as Jesus-times). But oddly, the Pharisees seemed to advocated the same ... 'everyone a priest' ... in espousing priestly rules to everyday Israelites. This was another Fredriksen observation, and I couldn't find your requested reference .... of course. OK, just muddling the waters.

MJ:

Not sure if the following will be of help.

Note the 3rd element: non scriptural or extra scriptural tradition.

Could it include Oral Torah?, a group of leaders believed that Moses gave Oral Torah besides the written one, and it was given to certain persons.

It seems that with time, a group of wisdom sages (the supposed guardians of oral Torah) decided to declare themselves "Living Torah".

Curious thing is that when they were confronted with Jesus Christ (the real Living Torah), they did not recognize Him. He was not a part of their system, and that is why they kept asking on what authority He operated (not invented here type problem for them).

What is curious, is that to such persons, Jesus called sons of the evil one, and look at the particular paradigm they operate from and that seems to replicate through time:

In the above article we see:

"... For instance, an apocalyptic Judaism could, and did, negate the importance of the Temple and levitical conduct; and a Judaism based on a levitical tradition, as was early rabbinism, could surpass the meaning of scripture’s words and suppress the supernaturalism and eschatology of apocalyptic speculation. "

Overman, J. A., & Green, W. S. (1992). Judaism: Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, pp. 1038–1039). New York: Doubleday.

Stephen the deacon was lapidated for negating the importance of the Temple, as he was getting in the revealed flow that Christ was the New Temple of God.

And note how the self proclaimed "living Torah" wisdom sages, "could surpass the meaning of scripture's words and suppress the supernaturalism and eschatology of apocalyptic speculation"

Jesus was all about apocalyptic revelation, and since it came from Him "real Living Torah" it quit being speculative, and was straight from the sent One from God. He was all about supernaturalism, as He explained that the Kingdom was entering this realm, and even prophesied that further believers would do greater works in that line.

Such veil the wisdom sages have, that cannot see that no one can prophecy the destruction of the Temple, and have it happen, unless is truly a direct envoy from God.

Was the wisdom sages system a human tradition trying to supplant real living Torah (Jesus)? it would seem so.

Different angle for further research, reflection and constructive comment if needed.

The above is an amalgamation of concept gathered from articles, mobile ed courses, and resources, not looking for academic rigor, but to spark your creativity into pursuing more concepts on the topic.

Some references below: please tell me if you get the below book in electronic form.

Very interesting topic, but not many resources specifically about it available: "living Torah"

Peace and grace.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199615#Comment_1199615

Some interesting material, Hamilton, but it doesn't directly answer my question of why the oral Torah/interpretative tradition is equated with the traditions of man by several Bible commentaries.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199618#Comment_1199618

directly answer my question of why the oral Torah/interpretative tradition is equated with the traditions of man by several Bible commentaries.

I do hope you find these two resources helpful. I've had the first for some time, but haven't come round to reading it yet. The second is part of the Neusner sale and can be had for the low, low price of $4.99.

https://www.logos.com/product/9073/torah-through-time

https://www.logos.com/product/176815/torah-through-the-ages-a-short-history-of-judaism

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199643#Comment_1199643

Thank you. The first book is one of my favorites -- I had it in paperback long before Logos added it. The second I don't believe I have although I think it is on sale at the moment. It looks like it is worth checking out.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199643#Comment_1199643

I am not sure what you are looking for, but these items may be of interest. (I am beginning a study in this area and have not read all of these works).

Overview: The Written Torah and the Oral Torah | My Jewish Learning

Introduction: The Written and Oral Torah: A Comprehensive Introduction | Logos Bible Software

This month there are a lot of books by Jacob Neusner for $5 that will go into as much detail as you want.

From a Messianic Jewish perspective that does not recognize the oral torah, see:

The Non-Torah: Exposing the Mythology of Divine Oral Torah, by The IAMCS

Rabbinic Judaism Debunked: Debunking the Myth of Rabbinic Oral Law by Eitan Bar and Golan Brosh

In support of the oral torah:

Oral Torah from Sinai: The Case for the Authenticity of the Oral Torah by R. Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199650#Comment_1199650

Very useful. I did not know that the Karaites had company in the no Oral Torah category.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199618#Comment_1199618

it doesn't directly answer my question of why the oral Torah/interpretative tradition is equated with the traditions of man by several Bible commentaries.

Way of true salvation: expounded in Scripture, and determined by God.

On the other end, supposed guardians of oral torah: self designated as "living torah" and develop their own way (human tradition) to supposedly achieve salvation.

So the issue comes across to me.

The real question is: if there is a way to obtain a credible source that proves there was an "oral torah" given by Moses, and what it consisted of.

Very interesting but the existence of an Oral Torah (the original), does not seem plausible. (ie not in line with the nature and character of God).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199738#Comment_1199738

Hamilton, I hate being blunt (impolite) but your comments are not helpful and have made me believe I cannot ask this type of question without some forum members violating the guidelines. I do not want to be an occasion for sin.

The real question is: if there is a way to obtain a credible source that proves there was an "oral torah" given by Moses, and what it consisted of.

Yes, it is possible. Read up on either Rabbinic Judaism or Kabbalah - the argument from scripture of the former is stronger than the latter. Read the Karaite Judaism literature for the rebuttal.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199754#Comment_1199754

MJ:

Maybe I am not communicating well.

Is there a sure way to know what oral Torah given by Moses is? If there is, then comparing what groups teach with relation to what it truly consist about will tell you if there is human tradition in play or not.

Anecdotical evidence of the existence is not true objective evidence.

I do not think Moses gave Oral Torah apart from Scripture, because the ultimate revelation of God (Jesus Christ) never mentions the existence of a secret knowledge given to only a few to gain salvation through some strange means.

He did say:

Joh 14:6 "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

That is: Jesus is the way of Salvation, and He tells it like it is clearly and transparently.

He even told some leaders: if you truly were into Moses, you would be happy to see me here [super rough paraphrase], obviously they were not, so the implication is that they were far from Moses, and far from an Oral Torah given by Moses if there was one.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199945#Comment_1199945

Contents of Oral Law
The substance of the “Torah shebe-‘al peh” in the wider sense, as found in the Mishnah, in the Tosefta, and in the halakic midrashim, may be divided into the following eight groups:
(1) Explanations of certain statutes of the written law, which are not altogether intelligible without them, and which statutes therefore presuppose an oral interpretation. Such explanations admit of being connected in some artificial way with Scripture.
(2) Ancient halakot which have no connection whatever with Scripture and can not be connected with it, thus deriving their authority only from the tradition which ascribes them to Moses on Sinai. In the case of these two groups it is impossible to ascertain which elucidations and rules were really given to Moses on Sinai, and which were added later. The criterion of Maimonides, that all interpretations and statutes which never evoked divergent opinions are Sinaitic in origin, is correct only in a negative sense. Those explanations and regulations which have been interpreted in various ways are certainly not Sinaitic; but, on the other hand, many interpretations and statutes which are accepted unanimously and generally are equally non-Sinaitic in origin, since they are rabbinical institutions and laws which have never been explained divergently (comp. Ẓebi Hirsch Chajes, “Mebo ha-Talmud,” pp. 10b et seq.).
(3) Halakot found in the prophetic books. Some of these originated at the time of the Prophets; but others are much older, and are, perhaps, even Sinaitic, having been transmitted orally, and committed to writing by the Prophets (comp. Sanh. 22b). They are called also “Dibre Ḳabbalah” (Words of Tradition).
(4) Interpretations and regulations defining many written laws, as well as new halakot, which the first scribes, beginning with the time of Ezra, formulated. They are called also “Dibre Soferim” (Words of the Soferim).
(5) Interpretations and regulations covering the written law, as well as new halakot, which the Tannaim deduced from Scripture by means of hermeneutic rules or by logical conclusions. There are differences of opinion among the scholars in regard to most of these explanations and definitions; but they are of equal weight with the written law, and are called also “Debar Torah” (Regulation of the Torah).
(6) Customs and observances (“taḳḳanot”) which were introduced at various times by different scholars. They are ascribed partly to Moses, partly to Joshua, but chiefly to the members of the Great Synagogue or the Soferim, and are called also “Dibre Soferim.”
(7) Statutes and decisions (“gezerot”) decreed by the Sanhedrin or court, and generally accepted, thus becoming laws which could be abrogated only by another court superior to the first one in numbers and scholarship.
(8) Statutes and regulations for which the scholars had no tradition or allusion in Scripture, but which they accepted as standards after deriving them from the customs and laws of the country in which they were living. These are called “Hilkot Medinah” (Statutes of the Country). The regulations, observances, and statutes included in the last three groups were not considered equal invalidity to the written law, but were regarded merely as rabbinical regulations (“de-rabbanan”).

Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906), 425–426.

Oral Torah is referenced although not identified as such, throughout the Old and New Testament. As much of the Old Testament time period was primarily an oral culture, it would be more surprising to not have an oral component than to have one. As I know that Turks who lived thousands of miles away from the Orkhon stele could accurately recite it in the 1960's (among other examples), I have no problem believing that oral tradition can be maintained accurately for many centuries. Therefore, if the Jewish people say that they retained an Oral Torah which social and political concerns made them start writing down circa 3rd century, I will take their word for it until such time as I study it thoroughly myself. If they say that they maintained it in a manner that allows them to classify it into the categories described above, I believe them. Yes, the Kabbalah as part of the Oral Torah is a bit more problematic - I take a neutral position.

Oral Torah is NOT secret knowledge unless you concede that the Kabbalah is part of Oral Torah.

Matthew 2:23: And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

This reference cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was nevertheless passed down “by the prophets.”

Matthew 23:1–3: (“Moses’ seat”; already seen above.)

1 Corinthians 10:4: And all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

The Old Testament says nothing about any miraculous movement of the rock that Moses struck to produce water (Exod. 17:1–7; Num. 20:2–13). But rabbinic tradition does.6

2 Timothy 3:8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith.

These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exod. 7:8 ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

1 Peter 3:18–20: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

Peter, in describing Christ’s journey to Sheol/Hades, draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12–16).

Jude 9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”

Jude 14–15: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Here Jude directly cites 1 Enoch 1:9, and even asserts that Enoch prophesied.

Dave Armstrong, 100 Biblical Arguments against Sola Scriptura (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers Press, 2012), 33–34.

Okay, Hamilton, I've provided you with some basic data to start your research on an interesting topic. I would hold that due to the nature of the foundational rabbinic writing, all definitive answers are on shaky ground. I prefer no opinion to an uninformed opinion while recognizing many people value certainty over accuracy for sound psychological reasons.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199650#Comment_1199650

Rabbinic Judaism Debunked: Debunking the Myth of Rabbinic Oral Law by Eitan Bar and Golan Brosh

In support of the oral torah:

Oral Torah from Sinai: The Case for the Authenticity of the Oral Torah by R. Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron

I've picked up these two resources on your recommendation. In one of them, the first paragraph I read was highly unlikely to be true; I have several years of Sanskrit behind me, so I do have the background to judge it -- but I'll try to keep an open, but critical, mind.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199958#Comment_1199958

Excellent.

I have no problem believing that oral tradition can be maintained accurately for many centuries. Therefore, if the Jewish people say that they retained an Oral Torah which social and political concerns made them start writing down circa 3rd century, I will take their word for it until such time as I study it thoroughly myself. If they say that they maintained it in a manner that allows them to classify it into the categories described above

Agree fully, but with one condition: the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself, (neither in oral or Written revelation), if the supposed oral Torah does not jibe with the Scriptures, I will definitively not trust it regardless of how faithfully the proposing groups assert they have guarded it through time.

I would hold that due to the nature of the foundational rabbinic writing, all definitive answers are on shaky ground. I prefer no opinion to an uninformed opinion while recognizing many people value certainty over accuracy for sound psychological reasons.

And this is the beauty of Christianism, God's Son came Himself to teach us as promised, if anything does not align with His teachings, then is not to be retained.

Some groups affirm that oral Torah was given to select few, and that it explained what the written stuff meant, if that is not secret, then I do not know what is.

In contrast Jesus loves all of His creatures, He openly and clearly tells how it is so that they may find salvation.

I do appreciate your efforts, and truly a great topic this is, but I was giving a different angle for your investigation, because I know you are thorough, not to get you to believe anything I say.

Remember that sola Scripture could very well refer to the key thrusts, (redemption, fall, salvation, etc). there are other solas. In modern times some have talked about sola Holy Spirit (to give it a name).

Through Scripture we also know the nature and character of God: He is no man to lie, so he would not tell humanity at large about a New Covenant to save people, and then tell some people that only through the explanation given orally to some group will the real salvation happen.

We could also get into the gift of Discernment of Spirits, but that is extending further into something we are not to do here.

Peace and grace.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200046#Comment_1200046

Guess what Hamilton. I still wish you would avoid the theology as it is inappropriate in this context. I know you think you are being helpful -- but I am a top down thinker and don't need help on the big picture. I need help on the minutiae.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199961#Comment_1199961

I would really like to hear your conclusions after you research this topic.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200118#Comment_1200118

I think the conclusion of oral torah being "of man" is best sourced from the rabbinic explanation regarding where their authority comes from. I've discussed this in the past here, so I will just give a Cliff's Notes version. The Talmud says that "as it is written" people should "follow after a multitude" in matters concerning the law. The word "multitude" is rabhbiym, the word from which the rabbis get their name. For those who wonder where in Tohraah it says "follow after a multitude", the specific reference given for this is Exo. 23:2NASB. In the NASB, both "masses" and "multitude" are rabhbiym.

So, yeah...THAT.

Also, the oral law is prima facie contrary to Deut. 4:2 and Deut. 12:32. Excising the "not" and "nor" from Exo. 23:2 in order to use "follow after a multitude" (i.e. follow after the rabbis) as the reason for following rabbinic tradition is the very definition of "taking away" from the Law.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200263#Comment_1200263

Also, the oral law is prima facie contrary to Deut. 4:2 and Deut. 12:32.

Not disagreeing with your points. But 'the gates' (presumed a walled city, but anyway, where justice was exercised by the elders) would require something on the order of a 'talmud' ... in the same way 'doctrine' has to fill in the blanks on the Christian text?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1199958#Comment_1199958

This reference cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was nevertheless passed down “by the prophets.”

This is the whole point:

Are sages (wisdom or not) prophets? nein, so about most of the prophets that do have the real message moving on:

Mat 21:38 But when the tenant farmers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us killhim and have his inheritance!'

Mat 23:34 For this reason, behold, I am sending to you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues and will pursue from town to town

Thank God the real message is preserved (even if not with every minute detail) in the Scriptures.

Because if it was up to leaders entrusted with preserving the original, we would be in trouble.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200263#Comment_1200263

David Paul and DMB:

Very interesting, thanks for sharing your mind.

From my super limited perspective (open to receive more insight), I think it all comes down to your true surrender to God's heart. It does not matter if you are a seer or prophet, sage, or plain sheep like me.

The ones that try to lean towards God within their finitude, will receive and try to carry the original message.

Unfortunately, some others have some deeper issue that prevents them from fully side with God:

Psa 36:1 For the music director. Of David, the servant of Yahweh. An oracle: the wicked has rebellion in the midst of his heart. There is no fear of God before his eyes.

Many times such persons end up in leadership and trying to add / subtract from the original message.

The whole point of bringing this up is that as plain sheep (my case) all the way to very advanced students (most of you), have stewardship responsibilities that cannot be delegated.

Check all, retain what is good, it is imperative that those leaders that are found wanting, not be followed. Strangers are not to be followed, only the true Shepherd of the sheep: Jesus.

God is crystal clear and loves us, He would not say something different to what He has publicly disclosed for our salvation and well being.

So all rules, regulations, doctrines developed, and such contrary to the true intent of God, are not binding, not to be followed, adhered, etc.

Are there true sages, really trying to seek God, and follow His ways? of course, but I would not expect them to have the authority to set doctrine oral or not in a system infiltrated by rebel tares.

Remember the movie Schindler's list, even though maybe fiction good illustration, when an officer unjustly tried to kill a rabbi, the gun jammed and could not. God takes care of His true sheep.

144000 will be sealed, true children, not corrupted with human tradition outside God's message and intent. God always has a remnant.

Peace (shalom), and grace.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200278#Comment_1200278

David Paul and DMB:

Very interesting, thanks for sharing your mind.

From my super limited perspective (open to receive more insight), I think it all comes down to your true surrender to God's heart. It does not matter if you are a seer or prophet, sage, or plain sheep like me.

Hamilton, I haven't a clue what elders dispensing judgement at the gates in the OT has to do with God's 'heart'. I think you like to type, and can't stop?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200278#Comment_1200278

my super limited perspective

Hamilton, PLEASE listen to the plea of MJ:

"Hamilton, I hate being blunt (impolite) but your comments are not helpful and have made me believe I cannot ask this type of question without some forum members violating the guidelines."

Some of us have the forums set to "show all unread" When you continue to offer personal (theological) conclusions that violate the guidelines of this forum, you cause the thread to reappear in the "show all unread" just to be disappointed that there is no new substantive content.

Other users used the word "incorrigible", please read the room and cease.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200283#Comment_1200283

Hamilton, I haven't a clue what elders dispensing judgement at the gates in the OT has to do with God's 'heart'. I think you like to type, and can't stop?

Anything done should be done for the Glory of God. dispensing judgment, etc. and that can only be when one is close to HIm.

My apologies to all that are made uncomfortable by my writings. so will try to not do.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200118#Comment_1200118

I would really like to hear your conclusions after you research this topic.

I do not intend to have conclusions. My goal is an argument map that presents the best possible case (and objections) for each position.

My introduction to Oral Torah in the form of Kabbalah was a Jewish writing instructor. I spend two years learning to write parables, folktales, and religious teaching stories under him. My opinions do not mirror his but are strongly informed by his. As such my knowledge of the topic has expanded over four decades. The question I ran into in building an argument was very narrow "why do commentators equate 'traditions of men' to 'oral torah' without seeing a need to justify the equation?" They do not necessarily refer to the same thing. A case must be made, not merely asserted, that they do.

I am disappointed that some used my request for information as a means to provide their theology. In addition to the violation of the guidelines, this is unfortunate as there is not sufficient exploration of the scope of the terms -- which different people use in different ways. "Oral Torah" is used by some to refer to interpretative tradition which makes it nearly true by definition; others use it to describe Noahide law and thus defining Abraham's keeping of God's laws; others use it to describe God given revelation at Sinai not inscribed on the tablets or in the written Torah; others claim the esoteric Kabbalah was part of the God given revelation at Sinai, note this is the only esoteric use; some use it to describe the decisions of the Sanhedrin preserved over time. Please define what you are talking about before violating the forum rules.

To all those who stayed on topic with helpful posts, thank you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200319#Comment_1200319

My goal is an argument map that presents the best possible case (and objections) for each position

OK. skip over this post for sure. But 'the gates' (OT elders applying torah; apparently city hall in ancient times) seem to illustrate that 'positions' would better be viewed as 'paths' (which is why many get lost in the Talmud, and very likely the jewish Bible).

'Positions' showed up (complete with names, no less) when the writings became the diety. And apparently the 'positions' were a life and death affair (without Divine involvement).

In my own system, I use paths ... the logical path a Pentecostal would take (verses; concepts; doctrines) ... a path a Montanist would take (ditto; no verses). Positions are technically just random crossings of paths. The arguers argue, but they're coming from different paths. They throw out points, but the points are only useful relative to their own path ... not necessarily the other arguer.

I wonder if you approach would be easier? I'm guessing you're using a list/outline approach; not a linking approach. Or maybe not ... you mentioned mapping.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200322#Comment_1200322

OK. skip over this post for sure.

I enjoy your educational posts -- you are an excellent devil's advocate ... no, I should say superb as you are always on target. I agree with you that if I were to look at the cohesive systems, paths are clearly a better approach. However, I am looking at the level of topics of disagreement where the various paths take a particular position. Think of it as a "N views on scripture" approach where I am currently working on "7 views of rules of faith: elements used as rules". If you add significant linking because of the reuse of arguments in different contexts to a Toulmin inspired argument map. I then take the data to attempt to create a summarizing graphic; where appropriate, I try to convert the informal Toulmin diagram with a formal logical argument -- where I find I need to reread some of Douglas Walton.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200273#Comment_1200273

Also, the oral law is prima facie contrary to Deut. 4:2 and Deut. 12:32.

Not disagreeing with your points. But 'the gates' (presumed a walled city, but anyway, where justice was exercised by the elders) would require something on the order of a 'talmud' ... in the same way 'doctrine' has to fill in the blanks on the Christian text?

Working on the assumption that your question mark was intended despite the absence of an interrogative pronoun, my reply is...I don't think so. That is, I don't think enforced uniformity is expected or desired by YHWH in matters not made explicit in Scripture. Rather, I think He judges against such attempts, while also judging the ways in which individuals attempt to fill-in-the-blanks. A timely example is the matter of when the Biblical year should begin. The Bible gives indication that the first month of the year, called 'Aabhiybh (usually but also confusingly spelled either Abib or Aviv), is associated with a particular stage of barley maturity also called 'aabhiybh in Exo. 9:31NASB (specifically the phrase "in the ear"). For those who persist in observing the moh`:adhiym (the prophetically significant "appointed times" outlined in Lev. 23 that depict the sequential stages of Yeishuua`'s role as Messiah and Savior), identifying the first month is significant in that it determines for the entire subsequent year when all of the various moh`:adhiym will occur. However, because Scripture is not explicitly clear regarding the "what" and "how" that determines the "when", for years now there has been a bifurcation of observance based on how folks determine the start of the new year. Right now, some people are currently celebrating Passover and Unleavened Bread, while others will be doing so a month from now.

Many, seeing unity and uniformity as being paramount, will insist that one party is wrong and the other is right. Perhaps that's true, but given the lack of Scriptural clarity, I think ':Elohhiym is likely more concerned with people coming to their own conclusions based on their own in-depth study. When they stand before Him in judgment, can they give a defensible account of why they kept what they kept? Even if they kept it 'inaccurately", I expect that He will be more inclined to accept such inaccuracy as sincere obedience if the person demonstrates his or her attempt to reason through the pertinent Scripture in their efforts to comply with His will. Concurrently, I expect He will be less forgiving of those whose defense of why they did what they did is summed up by "so-and-so told me to do it that way" (also known as "tradition" or "oral law"). In other words (in the absence of a legitimate priesthood a la mode de Deut. 17), attempts to coerce or "guide" others into uniformity, regardless of the motivation, is effectively akin to idolatry based on the transgression of Deut. 4:2 & Deut. 12:32, as well as Deut. 30:19 where YHWH explicitly gives people a CHOICE of whether they want to obey His word or not. In other words, removing from a person the choice YHWH has given to disobey Him is potential idolatry and sin. For instance, trying to prevent people from participating in same sex activities or transgendered activities is probably viewed more harshly by YHWH than those activities themselves, even if He proscribes them, on the principle that sins against others are judged more harshly than sins against oneself. This may seem unlikely to many Christians, but there is precedence for this in Scripture.

YHWH told Israel to eliminate all inhabitants of the land to prevent idolatrous influence, and specifically they were told not to make covenants with said inhabitants (Exo. 23:24, Exo. 34:12, Deut. 7:2). However, they transgressed this command by making a covenant with the Gibeonites in Josh. 9:3-20. In Jdg. 2:1-5, YHWH condemns their transgression openly. Later, Saul severely harrassed the Gibeonites and sought to eliminate them from the land by destroying them (2 Sam. 21:1-2). This is exactly what YHWH originally said He wanted...however, once a covenant was made with the Gibeonites, even doing what YHWH originally commanded was now considered SIN. Returning to Deut. 30, some people may choose to sin, but because YHWH has granted people that CHOICE, when Christians seek to impose limitations on perceived sinners to remove their option to choose disobedience, they are sinning in the manner of Saul. That YHWH APPROVED the judgment against Saul's children is manifest in the fact that He removed the drought curse on Israel when the price was paid. Do you (generic "you" - not Denise specifically) actively support preventing LBGT people from engaging in their chosen paths? Then your children may well pay with their lives, not to mention the judgment against you.

I followed this path to demonstrate that Deut. 30, taken in concert with Deut. 4 & 12, shows pretty clearly that coercion in the name of "pleasing God" may very well be perceived by Him as transgression, sin, and idolatry. Imposing "rules" or "rulings" that are not according to His express word is potentially dangerous. If two or more people see things differently, so be it. It's okay to express your view of what's right, but attempting to oblige others to your POV is foolhardy. Oral law, tradition, and non-explicit (i.e. unscriptural) doctrine are coercion by more palatable names.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200473#Comment_1200473

David Paul, I don't believe that you don't know your post is theological. Please respect the forum guidelines. I have managed to refrain from giving my take on the Oral Torah despite this being a thread in which I am OP.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200479#Comment_1200479

your post is theological

Oh, I suppose, marginally so, but that wasn't really my intention. I was just trying to answer Denise's query, the reply provided being inevitably based on Scriptural understanding. I was also trying to provide perspective in light of your query as well. Again, paradox-driven here, so I often find myself approaching topics from generally unanticipated directions. On some level, that requires a bit of explanatory and exculpatory background.

On some level, I'm addressing the "vs." in your title. Is it appropriate? Is it misleading? Something that comes to mind is "fruit of the poisonous tree". At some point, lines can be crossed that make "infomation gathering" pointless, or not surprisingly, potentially poisonous. Just creating food for thought. Of course, you might want to apply that notion to me as I'm raising the issue with you. Regardless, there are lots of different lines, not just the forum ones.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200487#Comment_1200487

Huh? You make some interesting points but re-reading I still fail to see how it related to my question "why do commentators assume "oral Torah" equals "human tradition"? I have yet to find a line of reasoning that doesn't require the addition of questionable assertions but continue to assume commentators are rational beings and I simply haven't found the right source.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200586#Comment_1200586

I still fail to see how it related to my question "why do commentators assume "oral Torah" equals "human tradition"?

My turn...huh?

Simple question...has any rabbi in history ever condemed rabbinic authority acquisition by making use of an out-of-context, Exacto-knifed phrase from the Bible that exponentially enhances the inappropriateness of the language used by deliberately excising the negating abverbs "not" and "nor" in order to accomplish its power grab???

No?? Then why are you still fumbling around in unclarity? Oral Torah was designed for one purpose...to acquire "legitimate" power for a group, the Pharisees (and their offspring the rabbis), that is nowhere mentioned in Tanakh. Scripture explicitly forbids the concept of a "secondary law", and the mechanism for "supporting" it biblically literally requires insisting that the Bible says the exact opposite of what it plainly says...and the procedure is so brazen that they don't even try to hide that fact. This isn't a covert phenomenon; it's as overt and "out there" as is possible.

Rabbinical authority is entirely extra-biblical and it was buttressed by the concoction of a "law" found nowhere in history apart from the "wink wink" story of being passed down orally generation to generation to...the ones who coveted having Scriptural authority in the form of sole interpretive license. How much more "human tradition" can a thing be??

Perhaps you don't understand the context in which the Pharisees came into existence and why they felt the need to acquire "support" for their acquisition of power and authority over Scriptural interpretation?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200631#Comment_1200631

I questioned the use of "vs." in the thread title because the one-to-one correspondance seems obvious. How could it even be possible to intentionally craft a religion that is more deserving of the moniker "human tradition" than a religious ediface that constantly intones "rabbi so-and-so said in the name of rabbi so-and-so" and follows it with verbage called "law"? Why are people supposed to accept as prescriptive these musings of men speaking in the name of men?

Tradition.

Does more really need to be said?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200635#Comment_1200635

Does more really need to be said?

Bet you can guess that I have no interest of reading your theology and opinion here. There is a Faithlife group in which such comments with sufficient supporting documentation would be appropriate.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200642#Comment_1200642

Yes, yes...but what I'm saying here is that a simple comparison of Tanakh and Talmuudh presents data points that explicitly resolve this seeming quagmire of uncertainty you suggest you are in. Nothing more is necessary than a modicum of semantic awareness of word meanings and the concept of "opposite".

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200643#Comment_1200643

this seeming quagmire of uncertainty you suggest you are in.

My only problem with this explanation is that I am NOT in a quagmire of uncertainty. I am simply trying to fill in the logical gaps for an argument map which so far runs about 6 parts I disagree with to 1 part I do agree with. If I were to argue with the gaps I find in apologetic works, I would be embarrassed. I truly want to present the positions I disagree with the same respect I give my own position. I use the term "versus" not as "opposite of" but in the sense of "in contrast to". I simply need someone to provide evidence or logical argument for the equating of two concepts that historically are separate but overlapping. I cannot build a solid argument for solo or sola scriptura without this puzzle piece.

Yes, I'm still working away on an argument map despite the lack of reasonable functionality on the Faithlife site. I've come across a common assertion in conservative resources for which I find no one trying to justify. Do you know of any source - book or article - that explains why oral Torah is assumed to be identical to/part of human tradition rather than there being two independent things? No discussion -- just references.

Note: I have been concentrating my readings recently on conservative resources so don't go reading anything into "conservative" beyond these forums are where I am most apt to find people with these resources.

I'm no expert, but here is a suggested resource; https://www.logos.com/product/47649/answering-jewish-objections-to-jesus-vol-5

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201036#Comment_1201036

Thanks, Bill, I'll check it out.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200635#Comment_1200635

This is a topic I am digging in right. Re my last question on the forum. What was your conclusions on this study?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1292104#Comment_1292104

I'm of the oral torah persuasion although the term oral torah is of later vintage. Oral torah to me contains at a minimum the interpretative tradition handed down from teacher to pupil and the Temple rubrics. Some of the broader definitions e.g. Kabbalah are unlikely.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1197720#Comment_1197720

I find it assumed or asserted but never justified ... and I can easily produce arguments against the equating but need to produce one for it.

I think you are making this way more difficult than it actually is. The primary sources and some basic logic seem to lay things out pretty clearly, imo. I would be interested in your arguments against equating them...kind of dubious about this myself.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1292214#Comment_1292214

The primary sources and some basic logic seem to lay things out pretty clearly, imo.

In creating an argument map, my opinions are irrelevant except for selecting the agreed upon accepted assertions for the starting point of the argument. Whether or not I have identified the most succinct line of reasoning is up for discussion. But I've been noted for half-a-century as the person to go to if you need to identify the odd case that will break a theory or proof. But, then, I was the pre-teen who needed the proof that 1.99999.... = 2.0 before I would accept there wasn't 1/infinity difference between them but rather they were precisely equal.

In this particular case, as per Douglas Walton, the person equating them bears the burden of proof that they are identical. I could not find anyone taking on that burden. However, it must be remembered that I did nothing to try to prove they were separate, only to prove that there was no reason to prove they were identical.

Quick Links