David Klingoffers cites some examples in Why The Jews Rejected Jesus and Roy Schoeman cites others in Salvation is From the Jews. And it is anyone’s guess what was lost or modified when the oral Torah was finally committed to writing.I never heard of any passages of the Mishna – regarding the Temple or otherwise – that were excised.
So perhaps a more precise question would be what parts of the Torah did the Apostles keep, some or all of what was written at that time or some or all of the oral, etc.Torah means instruction. It covers both oral and written, although we often use it as a shorthand for the written Torah.
Yes, but actually Klinghoffer’s examples will server our purposes here better anyway. Talmudic attitudes toward gentiles are not, in general, about Christianity but, rather, about Jewish attitudes towards gentiles, generally.I read Klinghoffer’s book. I don’t think he suggested that laws regarding the Temple were removed. He discusses parts of the Talmud that were taken out because of fear of christians and the later put bavck in.
Actually the brilliance of the Talmud was that instead of setting single immutable rules only it set down a discussion of different situations and different viewpoints and reasonings among the scholars. This was critical as it allowed for the dynamic continued development of Halachah. If you have a book about understanding the Talmud that does not emphasize and elaborate on this unique point then in my opinion the book and the person wishing to understand Talmud misses the whole basis of the Talmud.Yes, but actually Klinghoffer’s examples will server our purposes here better anyway. Talmudic attitudes toward gentiles are not, in general, about Christianity but, rather, about Jewish attitudes towards gentiles, generally.
Anyone aware of those passages should not be surprised that 1AD Jews would regard it to be unclean to dine with gentiles.
On another angle:
The destruction of the Jewish National State and the burning of the Temple necessitated tremendous changes of a structural nature. Many old regulations had to be abolished. The High Court at Jamnia also took upon itself the power to suspend certain Biblical laws which were either obsolete or incapable of being fulfilled due to changed conditions. Of the many prohibitions abrogated by the rabbis none benefitted Judaism more than setting aside the age-old tradition against putting the Oral Law into written form. Despite the fact that for centuries it was regarded as a serious transgression of Judaism to commit any part of the Oral Law into writing, the demands of the new age were entirely too compelling to be denied. The time had now come when the memory of the sages (even as it was trained in those days) could no longer hold the vast accumulation by oral transmission. Since the destruction of the Temple, the growth of the Oral Law, and the extension of its principles, mushroomed into a huge bulk. Individual teachers, jurists, and disciples resorted to jotting down various aspects of the Oral Law as aids to memory. From such beginnings as these arose the vast literature of the Talmud. [Understanding the Talmud, p. 8]
So the Talmud, by its very commitment to writing, violated a most basic oral tradition.
It is an interesting question whether the Oral Law was ever intended to be immutable.
I don’t disagree with this but I think there are different views. The most orthodox view is that the Oral Torah was handed down to Moses by God along with the Written Torah. I don’t know how prevelant this view actually is.Actually the brilliance of the Talmud was that instead of setting single immutable rules only it set down a discussion of different situations and different viewpoints and reasonings among the scholars. This was critical as it allowed for the dynamic continued development of Halachah. If you have a book about understanding the Talmud that does not emphasize and elaborate on this unique point then in my opinion the book and the person wishing to understand Talmud misses the whole basis of the Talmud.
Which would mean someone would have to have access to 1st century Mishnahs. Is that possible?The original question that Valke2 raised was whether it was possible that 1AD Jews had rules against eating with gentiles if such rules are not found in the Mishnah but I think only the most orthodox view would contradict that.
If the Apostles recognized that they had the authority to “Bind and Loose” like the Jewish leaders previously held, then they wouldn’t have had any reservations about changing the laws.The other question, the question of this thread (I should have been more precise) is whether it is plausible that the Apostles kept the Written Torah (including the dietary laws) but fiddled with the Oral Torah.
It wasn’t written down at the time of Acts, Jewish Sages only began after the destruction of the Second Temple (70AD). What the Apostles were relying upon was the literally oral traditions. The implicit claim is that all the oral traditions were written down but there is no way to confirm that claim and the very nature of the Mishnah, and the timing of when it was wirtten, suggest that it was not necessarily an exact record of the traditions. For example, we only get to hear from the Jewish sages from the Rabinnical tradition.Which would mean someone would have to have access to 1st century Mishnahs. Is that possible?
Keep in mind that the question is whether the Apostles kept the written Torah. Not whether they had the power to overturn it.If the Apostles recognized that they had the authority to “Bind and Loose” like the Jewish leaders previously held, then they wouldn’t have had any reservations about changing the laws.
But remember, the issue that was decided was not whether Jews had to keep the Written Torah but whether gentiles had to convert to become Christians. It is not all inconsistent to say that they decided that gentiles need not convert but that the Apostles, as Jews, had to continue to observe the Written Torah and, further, that they had the authority to rewrite the Oral Torah but not the Written Torah.The Council of Jerusalem would seem to support this theory.
Interesting, but what about Peter’s vision of the sheet filled with all kinds of animals - clean and unclean, that he was instructed to eat?The other question, the question of this thread (I should have been more precise) is whether it is plausible that the Apostles kept the Written Torah (including the dietary laws) but fiddled with the Oral Torah.
How would an orthodox view contradict this? While there may be differences among Jews as to how the Mishna was passed from generation to generation – i.e., was it given to Moses by God or was it a conversation that developed over time – All Jews who read or study Mishna are reading the same Mishna. My question was really asking for any textual support for this belief.The original question that Valke2 raised was whether it was possible that 1AD Jews had rules against eating with gentiles if such rules are not found in the Mishnah but I think only the most orthodox view would contradict that.
There is an enormous difference between saying (orthodox) that the Mishna comes directly from God and that it simply happened not to have been written down by Moses and saying (liberal) that the Mishna is a human commentary on the written Torah. The former would be as invoilable as the Ten Commandments, the latter could change witht he circumstances.How would an orthodox view contradict this? While there may be differences among Jews as to how the Mishna was passed from generation to generation – i.e., was it given to Moses by God or was it a conversation that developed over time – All Jews who read or study Mishna are reading the same Mishna.
I’m not familiar with the details of the Mishna but, as you say, it seems self-evident that a Jew is going to “have have a difficult time eating at a [gentlile] table”, Christian or otherwise and that it was probably discouraged, at the least. The NT says that Paul was criticizing Peter because he had withdrawn the gentiles which suggests that he had quit eating with them, not that he had quit inviting them to eat (kosher) with him.My question was really asking for any textual support for this belief. While it is true that a Jew would have a difficult time eating at a christian table because of dietary restrictions set forth in the laws of kashrut, there would be no difficulty that I can think of in a Jew having christians eat with him at his dinner table. That nonjews are eating at my table has no effect on the “kosherness” of my food.
Here is an interesting article on this:Interesting, but what about Peter’s vision of the sheet filled with all kinds of animals - clean and unclean, that he was instructed to eat? Actually, I hink James kept the Jewish dietary and other laws, Peter wavered a bit until Paul told him that he was being a hypocrite.
As for the others, I don’t remember reading anything about them, although John traveled with Paul for a while.
Yes, in the context of Acts, a “Judaizer” was someone who insisted that gentiles must adopt the full Torah to follow Jesus, i.e. be Christian.
That unclean animal link is very interesting.Here is an interesting article on this:
cogwriter.com/unclnt.htm
Here is Acts 10:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010;&version=46;
I’m not sure I believe it but it is an argument but it could be that, as with Jesus bending the Sabbath rules, Peter’s vision merely indicates that it is ok to share a meal with gentiles for a higher purpose. Thus it would still be normative for a Jew to keep kosher but not a rule without exceptions.
OK, let’s try a different tract.Like most Christians, I’ve taken it for granted that Paul declared the Torah to be dead.
But there is an interesting argument that the apostles kept the Torah Law and that it was only later that it fell out of practice as gentiles, who undoubtedly were not obligated to keep the Torah, came to dominate the Church.
For example:
hebrewroot.com/Articles/gal_2.htm
Probably Paul’s most direct statement on in support of this is Romans 3:31:
“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”
I’m not even sure what the official Catholic position is on this.
The more I look at it, the more ambiguous it seems. Clearly the Apostles were struggling with this question. For example, when Peter had his dream he declared, “…I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). So whether or not the dream meant to end the kosher food distinction, at least until then Peter had been keeping kosher.How well did the Apostles keep the Torah while they were disciples of Jesus?
Very astute answer!The more I look at it, the more ambiguous it seems. Clearly the Apostles were struggling with this question. For example, when Peter had his dream he declared, “…I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). So whether or not the dream meant to end the kosher food distinction, at least until then Peter had been keeping kosher.
Well, that issue would take care of itself rather shortly, it seems.Similarly, the debate about whether gentiles had to be circumcised implied that, at least until then, it was plausible to some of the Apostles that they were supposed to. Instead the Jerusalem council limited the requirements but only to gentiles.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2015;&version=47;
And it’s interesting that this decision does not violate the Written Torah which imposes few obligations on gentiles as compared with Jews (and the obligations of gentiles are inferred from God’s covenant with Noah, father to gentiles and Jews alike).Which is why, in my opinion, the Council’s decision is a major factor in Christianity becoming something more than just a minor sect in a backwater country.
I think by the third generation, there was little differences left, with of course, a few exceptions. That seems to be the trend in today’s world.But then the question becomes: what happened to the Jewish Christians? Did they get assimilated into a gentile Church over the generations? Or did they in fact make a conscious decision that they were no longer Jews but simply Christians.
This is a little off track, but it’s interesting that gentiles were not required to be circumcised in Paul’s time, but now most Christians are circumcised. I wonder why?I think by the third generation, there was little differences left, with of course, a few exceptions. That seems to be the trend in today’s world.