Argument for Sola Scriptura: did Jesus never quote from the Talmud?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LongJohnSilver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LongJohnSilver

Guest
One of my Protestant friends confronted me with an argument for Sola Scriptura which I found interesting and didn’t know an answer to.

It went like this: In the New Testament, Jesus quoted a lot from the Scriptures but never from the Talmud. Therefore, christians should accept the authority of the Scriptures but not of Tradition.

What do you guys think of this argument? Is he right in claiming that Jesus never quoted from the Talmud? If he is, does it follow that Tradition has less authority than Scripture? How can I reply?
 
LongJohnSilver said:
One of my Protestant friends confronted me with an argument for Sola Scriptura which I found interesting and didn’t know an answer to.

It went like this: In the New Testament, Jesus quoted a lot from the Scriptures but never from the Talmud. Therefore, christians should accept the authority of the Scriptures but not of Tradition.

What do you guys think of this argument? Is he right in claiming that Jesus never quoted from the Talmud? If he is, does it follow that Tradition has less authority than Scripture? How can I reply?
Click to expand...
What your friend is missing is that Oral Tradition is how Jews understood the Torah, later that Oral Tradition was written down in the Mishnah and even later in the Talmud.

Taking that information in consideration, the best way to answer your friend is to point Him to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Several times Jesus says, "You heard it said that ‘such and such’. Where did they heard it said? Some of these things that Jesus says they heard aren’t even in Scripture. Why? Because some of these saying come from the ORAL Tradition, and Jesus is quoting them. 🙂

Yoseph,
Shalom
 
As someone said, there was no Talmud in our LORD’s time; therefore your friend doesn’t know what he is talking about.

ICXC NIKA
 
LongJohnSilver said:
One of my Protestant friends confronted me with an argument for Sola Scriptura which I found interesting and didn’t know an answer to.

It went like this: In the New Testament, Jesus quoted a lot from the Scriptures but never from the Talmud. Therefore, christians should accept the authority of the Scriptures but not of Tradition.

What do you guys think of this argument? Is he right in claiming that Jesus never quoted from the Talmud? If he is, does it follow that Tradition has less authority than Scripture? How can I reply?
Click to expand...
I don’t get how his argument would even support his view. As someone else said, the Talmud was written down AFTER Jesus, and is considered an authoritative record by Jews of rabbinic discussions on Jewish law, Jewish ethics, customs, legends and stories. Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works, though some may have made private notes, for example of court decisions. Many Jews would memorize the Psalms and recite them in prayer, because they didn’t have a local bookstore to buy a copy of scriptures to self-interpret.
 
The Talmud/Gemara is a commentary on the legal aspects of the Mishnah, which was redacted sometime around 220AD. To say Jesus didn’t quote from a non-existent body of knowledge shows lack of understanding, by this person, of history (nevermind Scripture versus Tradition arguments). If you want to better understand the Catholic viewpoint so as to address your friend, have a read of this article.

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
 
Some argue Jesus DID quote the Talmud (Babylonian), some of the sayings in the New Testament resemble Talmudic sayings, perhaps because Jesus accepted some of the rabbis teachings, or its the same culture:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.—Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 31a

This was attributed to Rabbi Hillel, who died about the time Jesus was 12. There are a few other times the New Testament seems to quote Jewish sages
 
In addition to the debate/discussion currently ongoing right now on SS, and based on what you said your protestant friend claims, ask him why he does not accept the books of the Septuagint, considering THAT version of the OT is what he and the Apostles quoted from - NOT the Hebrew OT canon.

This is not some Catholic fairytale - even protestant scripture scholars admit that the Septuagint served as the basis for Christ’s and the Apostle’s teachings based on the wording they used.

Now why would they quote from a version of the OT that contained 7 more books in it than the current protestant OT canon, unless they thought that version was a valid one?

I can tell you now . . . he won’t have an answer.
 
The opinions seem to differ a bit about whether Jesus quoted from the Talmud or not. Any reading materials that are recommended?

@Salvatore: I am more experienced with that debate. But the argument my friend gave I’d never heard of.
 
steve53 said:
Torah?

The Talmud wasn’t created until A.D. 400.
Click to expand...
Or even later. Most of the personages mentioned in the Talmud lived long after the time Jesus. I suppose Jesus could have theoretically quoted from oral material that was later included in the Talmud when it was compiled. But to say “Jesus never quoted from the Talmud” is really a silly statement.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Or even later. Most of the personages mentioned in the Talmud lived long after the time Jesus. I suppose Jesus could have theoretically quoted from oral material that was later included in the Talmud when it was compiled. But to say “Jesus never quoted from the Talmud” is really a silly statement.
Click to expand...
Indeed, considering as many have said it was written after His time, not to mention the Talmud blasphemes Christ in a way I will not utter here.
 
Long,

You are missing my point . . .

It does not matter whether Jesus quoted from the Talmud or not. How does his quote or failure to quote from that body of “law” support SS and “destroy” traditions?

Your protestant friend’s bible does not have the Talmud in it either. Even if Jesus quoted from it morning to night, beginning to end, Jesus quoted from a body of “law” that your protestant friend does not recognize as being biblical or the word of God.

Does Jesus, simply quoting from a particular book, mean that it should become part of the biblical canon? If so, what happened to SS? SS adherents stick ONLY to the bible, and that means the protestant bible - which does NOT include the Talmud.

Where does that leave him with the argument of SS negating tradition?

Do you see what I am getting at?

I would also ask him: what about the fact that Jews, in addition to blaspheming Jesus in the most vile of ways, don’t have the NT in THEIR “holy books”? Protestants rely on Jews for the OT canon because “they” are supposedly authoritative, yet they killed Christ, rejected his teachings, and follow no part of the NT . . . I am not sure I would want that group of people to be the “standard bearer” for the bible that I follow.
 
LongJohnSilver said:
The opinions seem to differ a bit about whether Jesus quoted from the Talmud or not. Any reading materials that are recommended?

@Salvatore: I am more experienced with that debate. But the argument my friend gave I’d never heard of.
Click to expand...
John you can do a Wiki search on Talmud and know that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to quote from it.

But the point I made is that what was written in the Mishnah AND MUCH LATER in Talmud comes from the ORAL TRADITION, and that is what Jesus clearly quoted from at times, especially on the Sermon on the Mount - “You HEARD it said,”. He didn’t say, 'You READ it in the Torah that . . ." He said, "You HEARD it said . . .
Therefore, you still win your argument. Now go get’em! 🙂

Shalom,
 
Salvatore123 said:
In addition to the debate/discussion currently ongoing right now on SS, and based on what you said your protestant friend claims, ask him why he does not accept the books of the Septuagint, considering THAT version of the OT is what he and the Apostles quoted from - NOT the Hebrew OT canon.

This is not some Catholic fairytale - even protestant scripture scholars admit that the Septuagint served as the basis for Christ’s and the Apostle’s teachings based on the wording they used.

Now why would they quote from a version of the OT that contained 7 more books in it than the current protestant OT canon, unless they thought that version was a valid one?

I can tell you now . . . he won’t have an answer.
Click to expand...
I believe your argument is flawed.

We don’t know what books the Septuagint (LXX) contained at the time of Christ. The only manuscripts we have are all Christian copies and date only back to around the 4th century. Plus, the manuscripts we do have all contain different books. Interestingly enough, neither the Protestant or Catholic OT canon matches any of the existing LXX manuscripts.

In short, there is now way for us to demonstrate that the LXX of the 1st century matches with what we accept as the OT canon.
 
Semper,

You are correct . . . to a point.

We do not know - true - the EXACT canon of the Septuagint at the time of Christ and the Apostles.

We DO know, however, that (a) studies of word usage confirm that Christ and the Apostles, when they quote scripture, were quoting the Greek Septuagint vs. the Hebrew OT because of the way the verses were worded and recorded as spoken by them, and (b) some of the passages used by Christ/Apostles refer to deuterocanonical books that ARE most certainly in the Septuagint, namely: (1) Matthew 11:28-30 references Sirach 51:23-26, and (2) Matthew 27:41-44 references Wisdom 2:1, 12-22, esp. 12-20.

Technically, the question about the Septuagint is two-fold:
  1. Did Christ and the Apostles accept the Septuagint as a valid OT source to use?
  2. Did Christ’s and the Apostes’ use of the Septuagint, by default, mean that they accepted the Septuagint’s contents as valid?
Scholars can prove that the Septuagint was used by Christ and the Apostles because of their OT verse usage. It matches the Greek verses in many, many more instances than it does the Masoretic Hebrew wording.

Now, to answer the second question, an inference must be drawn: does usage of a paticular book mean acceptance of the contents of that book?

That is a question I suppose each person will have to answer for himself. I, personally, do not think that Christ and the Apostles would have been quoting from an OT set of scriptures that very likely included books, and definitely referenced some books, that were not considered scriptural.
 
LongJohnSilver said:
One of my Protestant friends confronted me with an argument for Sola Scriptura which I found interesting and didn’t know an answer to.

It went like this: In the New Testament, Jesus quoted a lot from the Scriptures but never from the Talmud. Therefore, christians should accept the authority of the Scriptures but not of Tradition.

What do you guys think of this argument? Is he right in claiming that Jesus never quoted from the Talmud? If he is, does it follow that Tradition has less authority than Scripture? How can I reply?
Click to expand...
 
LongJohnSilver said:
One of my Protestant friends confronted me with an argument for Sola Scriptura which I found interesting and didn’t know an answer to.

It went like this: In the New Testament, Jesus quoted a lot from the Scriptures but never from the Talmud. Therefore, christians should accept the authority of the Scriptures but not of Tradition.

What do you guys think of this argument? Is he right in claiming that Jesus never quoted from the Talmud? If he is, does it follow that Tradition has less authority than Scripture? How can I reply?
Click to expand...
If we follow your friend’s logic to its conclusion, it would mean that if Jesus quoted only from the Old Testament Scriptures as an authority, Christians should use only the Old Testament as well!

I find that Protestants are always looking for arguments to justify their position, and some of their arguments become pretty absurd.
 
Didn’t Peter believe in tradition ?

In Acts 20:35 it says “Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” If you look in the Gospels, you will not see this phrase. So Peter obviously received this orally, by someone who knew Jesus.

Also, you’re saying because Jesus did not quote from a certain book it should not be accepted. Well Jesus did not quote books, like Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes or Ruth, but it is still in non- Catholic bibles. I don’t even think it would be possible to quote from the Talmud since, it was written after Jesus.
 
noobio said:
Didn’t Peter believe in tradition ?

In Acts 20:35 it says “Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” If you look in the Gospels, you will not see this phrase. So Peter obviously received this orally, by someone who knew Jesus.
Click to expand...
Not from our LORD Himself?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top