L
LongJohnSilver
Guest
It seems there are more debates referred to in this thread:
- oral teaching versus scriptural teaching
- the O.T. canon
- authenticity and authority of certain books of the O.T.
Argument for Sola Scriptura: did Jesus never quote from the Talmud?
- Status
L
LongJohnSilver
Guest
Just remembered reading that Jesus and his Apostles observed the feast of Hannukah. The Talmud has certain rules and guidelines on this Jewish festival. Is that a good example as well? It is in the book of Makkabees, so it’s not in the protestant O.T.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Long,
The shortest answers to your question (and response to your protestant’s friend’s argument) that I can think of are:
The shortest answers to your question (and response to your protestant’s friend’s argument) that I can think of are:
- Jesus could not have quoted from the Talmud because it was not written until after Jesus lived.
- Using your friend’s logic, then we should consider as scripture ONLY those verses quoted by Jesus. And when I say “verses”, I mean just that - “verses”. How can one logically argue that a verse-quote from an entire book means that Jesus accepted the entire “book” as scripture, when we don’t know how much of that book compares to the book we have today? Look at the Book of Daniel, as an example. The Catholic version of Daniel is longer than the Protestant version.
- Jesus NEVER quoted from the NT, for an obvious reason: none of the NT books were written until after Jesus died. Do we say that the NT is not scripture as well, simply because Jesus did not quote from it?
- Jesus said quite a few things that are no where to be found in the OT. Does that mean that every book that does NOT contain a quote from Jesus mean it is not scripture? That seems to be the gist of his argument: quotes from Christ from a particular book makes that book “scriptural” and thus not tradition.
L
LongJohnSilver
Guest
Thanks Salvatore, that is helpful.
I just read this in a tract on CA:
I just read this in a tract on CA:
That’s great!
E
EricFilmer
Guest
I think it may be helpful for me to provide some clarification here. The dates in which the written Talmud was compiled (approximately A.D. 200 for the Mishnah & A.D. 500 for the Gemara) are really not a factor in terms of this particular Protestant challenge. The challenge refers to the Oral Torah. According to ancient rabbinic tradition, God gave Moses two sets of revelation, one to commit into writing (the Written Torah) and one to teach orally (the Oral Torah). Centuries later, the Oral Torah would be preserved within parts of the Talmud.
Therefore, the proposed defense of Sola Scriptura (which includes a rejection of non-scriptural tradition) is that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament but not from the Oral Torah (i.e., the OP’s Protestant friend should have said “Oral Torah” instead of “Talmud” to avoid the sort of confusion which is seen in this thread). Hence, the argument is that this at least implies that Jesus was an adherent of Sola Scriptura.
There are two ways to answer this challenge and refute its implication. The first is to show that Jesus and/or the Apostles appealed to the Oral Torah. That has already been demonstrated in this thread.
The second is to question the logic of the challenge. Along these lines I will present two points:
Therefore, the proposed defense of Sola Scriptura (which includes a rejection of non-scriptural tradition) is that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament but not from the Oral Torah (i.e., the OP’s Protestant friend should have said “Oral Torah” instead of “Talmud” to avoid the sort of confusion which is seen in this thread). Hence, the argument is that this at least implies that Jesus was an adherent of Sola Scriptura.
There are two ways to answer this challenge and refute its implication. The first is to show that Jesus and/or the Apostles appealed to the Oral Torah. That has already been demonstrated in this thread.
The second is to question the logic of the challenge. Along these lines I will present two points:
- The mere existence of the Oral Torah shows that the Jews never practiced Sola Scriptura. Using the Covenant of Abraham as a starting point for Judaism, this religion has been using oral tradition for 4000 years (including the Oral Torah and the teachings which predated Moses), which they claim was given to them from God. If God did not actually give them this oral tradition and only wanted them to use Scripture, then why didn’t he have Abraham compile the Torah instead of waiting centuries later to have Moses do it? And why didn’t he have one or more of his prophets clearly tell the Jews to stop using the Oral Torah and stick to Scripture alone? The closest example of Sola Scriptura we see in the history of Judaism is the “Written Torah Only” belief of the Sadducees. Theirs’ was a minority opinion, and clearly their position lead them to reject valid aspects of God’s revelation (because, among other things, they rejected the various books of the prophets).
- The challenge says that because Jesus did not quote from the Oral Torah, this implies that he adhered to the teaching of Sola Scriptura. But even if Jesus did not refer to the Oral Torah, this does not validate Sola Scriptura. After all, Jesus never taught Sola Scriptura either and he had plenty of opportunity to do so. For example, he criticized certain aspects of the oral Traditions of the Elders because they were overly-strict instructions on how to live the Law (and therefore these instructions did not truly represent the mercy and compassion of God). Instead of denouncing these specific strict oral traditions of the Pharisees, why didn’t Jesus simply denounce all oral tradition and then clearly teach Sola Scriptura? The obvious answer is that he did not because Jesus was not an adherent of Sola Scriptura.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Ask your friend to quote book, chapter, and verse where the Bible says that since Jesus quoted a lot from the Scriptures but never from the Talmud, christians should accept the authority of the Scripture but not of Traditon. Accept nothing from him but a quote from the Bible.
For crying out loud, where on earth did he get this idea? He obviously didn’t get it from the Bible! Strange that someone who claims sola scriptura is using a man-made tradition nowhere to be found in scripture.
And while you’re at it, you might ask him to quote the book, chapter, and verse that tells us which books belong in the Bible. He won’t be able to give you that one either.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
Exodus 18:13-26 (King James Version)
13And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
14And when Moses’ father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
15And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
16When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
17And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.
18Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
19Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
20And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
21Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
22And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
23If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.
24So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said.
25And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
26And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.
Seat of Moses
This basalt “Seat of Moses” was found in the 1920’s and it has an Aramaic inscription remembering Yudan. Jesus references this position of authority, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matt. 23:2-3).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
bibleplaces.com/chorazin.htm
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
It depends HOW, a source was quoted, “It is written”.
P
patrick457
Guest
Actually it is more correct to say that the Sadducees rejected ‘oral tradition’ as the Pharisees interpret it, the one which is usually labeled ‘oral Torah’. In its place they would have had their own special traditions of interpreting and applying the Law - in effect, they had their own ‘oral Torah’. In fact, all post-exilic groups were engaged in the processes of adaptation to new circumstances and had their own unique oral Torahs, i.e. customs and traditions beyond the Torah for how to live.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
Exodus 17
Numbers 20
Since the rock appears in two different locations, I think Paul simply implied that it was or does move, follow them from camp to camp. To my knowledge there is no Jewish Midrash that the rock followed them from camp to camp. If you know of any quotes from Jewish sources, please post them.
splitrockresearch.org/content/100/Field_Reports/The_Split_Rock
B. Apostolic Fathers reject literal rock followed them and are utterly silent regarding the meaning is founded in Jewish tradition:
Justin, in conversing with a Jew, mentions both the cloud and the rock, but says only the cloud followed them: “Again, when you desired flesh, so vast a quantity of quails was given you, that they could not be told; for whom also water gushed from the rock; and a cloud followed you for a shade from heat” (Justin Martyr, dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 81)
Chrysostom actually states that the expression of the Rock that “followed them” was not literal, but symbolized the many different types of miracles that followed the Jews. Chrysostom rejected the idea of a literal Rock following them: “they drank the same spiritual drink,” he added, “for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them,” and he subjoined, “and the Rock was Christ.” For it was not the nature of the rock which sent forth the water, (such is his meaning,) else would it as well have gushed out before this time: but another sort of Rock, a spiritual One, performed the whole, even Christ who was every where with them and wrought all the wonders. For on this account he said, “that followed them” (John Chrysostom, Homily 23, Homily on 1 Corinthians 10:4)
Augustine also rejects the rock literally followed them by interpreting the meaning of the following to include the rock, manna, living bread, cloud and pillar of fire: “For they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” The explanation of one thing is a key to the rest. For if the rock is Christ from its stability, is not the manna Christ, the living bread which came down from heaven, which gives spiritual life to those who truly feed on it? The Israelites died because they received the figure only in its carnal sense. The apostle, by calling it spiritual food, shows its reference to Christ, as the spiritual drink is explained by the words, “That rock was Christ,” which explain the whole. Then is not the cloud and the pillar Christ, who by His uprightness and strength supports our feebleness; who shines by night and not by day, that they who see not may see, and that they who see may be made blind? In the clouds and the Red Sea there is the baptism consecrated by the blood of Christ. The enemies following behind perish, as past sins are put away." (Augustine-Anti-Manichaean Writings, Book 12, 29)
bible.ca/sola-scriptura-pro-tradition-christ-rock-followed-1-cor-10-4.htm
Numbers 20
Since the rock appears in two different locations, I think Paul simply implied that it was or does move, follow them from camp to camp. To my knowledge there is no Jewish Midrash that the rock followed them from camp to camp. If you know of any quotes from Jewish sources, please post them.
splitrockresearch.org/content/100/Field_Reports/The_Split_Rock
B. Apostolic Fathers reject literal rock followed them and are utterly silent regarding the meaning is founded in Jewish tradition:
Justin, in conversing with a Jew, mentions both the cloud and the rock, but says only the cloud followed them: “Again, when you desired flesh, so vast a quantity of quails was given you, that they could not be told; for whom also water gushed from the rock; and a cloud followed you for a shade from heat” (Justin Martyr, dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 81)
Chrysostom actually states that the expression of the Rock that “followed them” was not literal, but symbolized the many different types of miracles that followed the Jews. Chrysostom rejected the idea of a literal Rock following them: “they drank the same spiritual drink,” he added, “for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them,” and he subjoined, “and the Rock was Christ.” For it was not the nature of the rock which sent forth the water, (such is his meaning,) else would it as well have gushed out before this time: but another sort of Rock, a spiritual One, performed the whole, even Christ who was every where with them and wrought all the wonders. For on this account he said, “that followed them” (John Chrysostom, Homily 23, Homily on 1 Corinthians 10:4)
Augustine also rejects the rock literally followed them by interpreting the meaning of the following to include the rock, manna, living bread, cloud and pillar of fire: “For they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” The explanation of one thing is a key to the rest. For if the rock is Christ from its stability, is not the manna Christ, the living bread which came down from heaven, which gives spiritual life to those who truly feed on it? The Israelites died because they received the figure only in its carnal sense. The apostle, by calling it spiritual food, shows its reference to Christ, as the spiritual drink is explained by the words, “That rock was Christ,” which explain the whole. Then is not the cloud and the pillar Christ, who by His uprightness and strength supports our feebleness; who shines by night and not by day, that they who see not may see, and that they who see may be made blind? In the clouds and the Red Sea there is the baptism consecrated by the blood of Christ. The enemies following behind perish, as past sins are put away." (Augustine-Anti-Manichaean Writings, Book 12, 29)
bible.ca/sola-scriptura-pro-tradition-christ-rock-followed-1-cor-10-4.htm
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Maybe it would be good for me to clarify my last post. While I’m sure the Sadducees did, indeed, argue with the Pharisees over interpretations of the Law, the point I was trying to make when I stated “Written Torah Only” is that the Sadducees held only the first five books of the Bible (i.e., the Torah or Pentateuch) to be authoritative. As the Ignatius Study Bible points out, “As a consequence, they opposed every doctrine not explicitly taught within the Pentateuch. This restrictive view of the biblical canon also provided them with one more reason to oppose the Pharisees: the Sadducees repudiated the oral traditions that the Pharisees developed to supplement the books of Moses.” - Scott Hahn & Curtis Mitch, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (Ignatius Press: San Francisco, 2010), 89.
So we can see a similar mentality between the Sadducees and adherents of Sola Scriptura. And, of course, the Sadducees’ mentality was to their detriment, because they denied the authoritative nature of the books of the Bible that appear after Deuteronomy.
P
patrick457
Guest
This is the standard interpretation of what we can find in the writings of Josephus - and admittedly this also was what I believed. However, what Josephus actually says is (Antiquities 13.297 [10.6]):
περὶ μέντοι τούτων αὖθις ἐροῦμεν. νῦν δὲ δηλῶσαι βούλομαι, ὅτι νόμιμά τινα παρέδοσαν τῷ δήμῳ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἐκ πατέρων διαδοχῆς, ἅπερ οὐκ ἀναγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς Μωυσέως νόμοις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα τὸ Σαδδουκαίων γένος ἐκβάλλει, λέγον ἐκεῖνα δεῖν ἡγεῖσθαι νόμιμα τὰ γεγραμμένα, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων μὴ τηρεῖν.
What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers.
That being said, some later Church Fathers (Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies 9.24; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.49; St. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 22:31f.) did claim that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah as canonical, but this is a matter contemporary sources - that is, the New Testament or even Josephus - does not say anything, and as a consequence, there are folks who advise against uncritical use of these sources.
I quote from The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation by Stephen B. Chapman:
The evidence that the Sadducees did not accept the prophetic books has long rested upon meager references by Origen and Jerome (Origen, Against Celsus, 1.49; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, on 22:31), the nature of which might just as well indicate a later confusion (second or third century A.D.) of the Sadducees with the Samaritans (For references, LeMoyne, Sadducéen, 142-44. Cf. Sundberg, Church 77-78. The confusion may have arisen from the actual fusion of these two groups in this period).
Building on the work of J. Maier (J. Maier, Auseinandersetzung), Carr has concluded that despite this possible confusion, and the complete absence of any confirmatory evidence in the writings of Josephus, early Mishnaic regulations indicate that priestly circles including the Sadducees ‘revered the Torah alone.’ (Carr, Canonization, 36 n. 39. Carr terms this absence ‘conspicuous’, but explains it away as the consequence of Josephus’ own goal of presenting a unified Judaism with a single canon. Contra Carr, it would seem a rather weak point for Josephus to make if it was so patently untrue.)
However, it is clear in Josephus’ work that the issue of contention between the Pharisees and the Sadducees did not have to do with a different scriptural canon, but with the authority of oral law, which the Pharisees championed. (Josephus, Antiquities 18.16; cf. Antiquities 13.297. Carr admits this point (Canonization, 36 n. 39), which then provides another example of interpreting ‘the law’ too narrowly. Cf. the sound judgments of Beckwith, Formation, 74; and Bruce, Canon, 40-41.)
Thus, to argue that Josephus overlooked the disagreement between the two groups over the scriptural canon is also to argue that he created a controversy over the oral law where none existed, and that he retreated from his effort to present a unified Judaism in one instance, but not in the other. Surely it is more likely that Josephus simply meant what he said.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Thanks for this additional commentary Patrick; I was unaware of this material from Chapman. Since my last post I have also been delving further into the beliefs of the Sadducees, and it seems a lot of what was known about them has been lost to history. So based on what was summarized in the Ignatius Study Bible they were a rare, short-lived, minority example of Jews who had a type of Sola Scriptura mentality (which was to their detriment). Other scholarship suggests that they shared the same Old Testament canon that the Pharisees used but argued over correct oral tradition (as you noted in Post #29). Either way, it can be demonstrated that, generally speaking, the concept of Sola Scriptura is unknown in Judaism.
As a side note, when Jesus defended the validity of the resurrection and afterlife when debating the Sadducees he appealed to Genesis rather than the stronger argument found in Ezekiel. Objectively speaking, I think this at least lends weight to the concept that the Sadducees were “Pentateuch Only”. But I don’t have any particular strong opinion one way or another concerning which representation of the Sadducees’ beliefs is more historically accurate.
P
patrick457
Guest
Indeed. As I see it, even if we grant that they indeed used the Torah alone (and the later Church Fathers were right), the Sadducees would not have been Scripture alone-types as some are, in that they would not have pretended that Scripture is able to interpret itself or that it is completely self-sufficient. They would have rejected special Pharisaic traditions, but in its place they would have had their own traditions on how to interpret the Law.
Oh, and I would also mention here the idea that the Sadducees were actually the religious conservatives, in contrast to the Pharisees, who were more ‘liberal’ in their approach to Scripture by their application of it to everyday life, thanks partly to the idea of ongoing revelation. (This is in contrast to older views, which viewed Pharisees as the conservatives and Sadducees as the liberals).
One could perhaps make a case with the later Karaites, but then again there also seems to be some differences (naturally) between their ideas and Protestant tenets.
Chapman actually addresses it on his book (see pages 267-268).
Let’s just say that Jesus using Exodus at this point does not seem to automatically mean they solely rely upon the Torah if we look at the history of Biblical interpretation: after all, later Jewish (Deuteronomy 32:39; cf. Talmud, Tractate Pesachim 68a; DeuteronomySifre 306) and Christian tradition used passages from the Pentateuch in support of the resurrection. Also note Jesus’ words: he does not criticize them for an ignorance of ‘Moses’ or the ‘Law’, but their misunderstanding of “the Scriptures [and] the power of God.” His answer possesses force not because it is from pentateuchal tradition, and therefore authoritative, but because it uses Scripture to ground a belief in resurrection in God’s own self, and thus makes resurrection an essenial tenet of a ‘Scriptural’ faith.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I think you are absolutely correct. It’s not that the Sadducees were rejecting any and all interpretive traditions, or the idea that interpretive traditions don’t exist—rather, it’s a matter of which ones they accepted and which ones they didn’t. I think that even for the Karaites, it’s more a matter of rejecting the particular authority and binding nature of the Misnah/Talmud rather than simply saying they don’t have their own interpretive traditions. Traditional Rabbinic Judaism assumes the that oral torah was given to Moses at Sinai just as the written torah was—giving oral tradition (as codified in the Misnah and further interpreted in the Talmud) a great deal of authority.
Even “Bible-only” Christians have interpretive traditions that are passed down (say Dispensationalism, just as an example for some), though they may not recognize them as such.
J
jimprince
Guest
I am new to your website. Upon reading some remarks, I saw where one person stated the Talmud was written 400 years after Christ.
This is not my understanding.
The Talmud is divided up into two different sections. One being the pre-Babylonian period, and the other being the post Babylonian.
Moses, and Aaron, upon receiving the Torah from God also received many instruction. The Torah was written on scrolls, and the rest was passed on by word of mouth through the Levitical Priesthood from generation, to generation.
When Israel was taken captive to babylon it is said they feared they would not all return to Israel.
It was decided they would commit the Talmud to scroll for the possibility someone might return and the Nation of Israel, (if reborned) would have all the tenants Moses received. The Torah as well as the Talmud.
From my studies the details of the pre-Babylonian Talmud seems to not clash with the Torah. However the post-Babylonian Talmud has many Rabbi’s adding to the original. The Post also says Jesus was not the son of God.
My conclusion is the Pre-Babylonian Talmud can be somewhat dependable, as opposed to the Post.
We do know that Christ was a Rabbi, and therefor had a full knowledge of the Talmud, as well as the Torah. As to whether he quoted the Talmud… I’m still researching…
This is not my understanding.
The Talmud is divided up into two different sections. One being the pre-Babylonian period, and the other being the post Babylonian.
Moses, and Aaron, upon receiving the Torah from God also received many instruction. The Torah was written on scrolls, and the rest was passed on by word of mouth through the Levitical Priesthood from generation, to generation.
When Israel was taken captive to babylon it is said they feared they would not all return to Israel.
It was decided they would commit the Talmud to scroll for the possibility someone might return and the Nation of Israel, (if reborned) would have all the tenants Moses received. The Torah as well as the Talmud.
From my studies the details of the pre-Babylonian Talmud seems to not clash with the Torah. However the post-Babylonian Talmud has many Rabbi’s adding to the original. The Post also says Jesus was not the son of God.
My conclusion is the Pre-Babylonian Talmud can be somewhat dependable, as opposed to the Post.
We do know that Christ was a Rabbi, and therefor had a full knowledge of the Talmud, as well as the Torah. As to whether he quoted the Talmud… I’m still researching…
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
The Talmud, composed of the Mishna and Gemara, was written down well after Christ. It was done in light of the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Any writing associated with the Babylonian Talmud occurred in the 6th century. Please do not comment here if you don’t know what you are talking about and quote sources if you dispute what is otherwise accepted fact.
J
jimprince
Guest
I stand corrected. Went back and studied the info I had read earlier and upon further study it became very clear I had been misinformed. Thank you for the correction. Hope to learn more on the matter here.
- Status