I was intrigued to learn that the Puritans read rabbinic judaism (Talmud, Mishna, Gemmara) were informed by it but studiously never quoted it.

Anyone interested in discussing Rabbinic Judaism and the "Oral Torah"?

__________________
Eoghan
member,Thurso Baptist Church
Scotland

specialist subject: Creationist Genetics (Bottleneck effect of the Ark)
interests: holiness (practical theology)
member of Biblical Creation Society (available as a guest speaker in the far north of Scotland)

You will find several puritans and orthodox reformed who were outstanding scholars of Rabbinics. A quick reading of the exercitations prefixed to Owen's commentary on Hebrews will remove any doubt. Bishop Lightfoot (a member of the Westminster Assembly) was one of the greatest scholars in the field. Fagius, the Buxtorfs, etc., were other examples of leading Reformed scholars of Rabbinics.

Also, I'm sure you will find many today interested in such things; we certainly haven't lost our interest. In the non-Reformed world, the two "leading" scholars of the field today are probably Neusner and Sanders, but I am not sure of any Reformed scholars who specialize particularly in Rabbinics (though there are many who specialize in second-temple studies). I would be quite pleased, however, to be informed of them.

In general, I would hesitantly say that there are far better things that the typical Christian on the street can and should be studying than Rabbinics; these studies absolutely have an important place in the church's studies, but perhaps it is better for the common man to simply receive the applicatory fruits of these studies by pastors and teachers as they relate to the scriptural texts, than to spend time sifting through an enormous corpus of literature hoping to find something relevant. It is an arcane field.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

As one whose PhD work is in the history of biblical interpretation, I've significantly studied both the hellenistic side (Philo, et al.) and the rabbinic side. I agree with Paul's assessment. They were extremely close readers of the text, but they were also very fanciful in their interpretations of it. I have found very little in them that is of use in biblical studies. I guess the only thing I really get out of them is a puzzle. I see them saying some strange thing and it forces me to look more closely at the Hebrew. Sure enough, they have found some grammatical strangeness and seized on it. But the value is not in where they went with it, but in pointing out the anomaly (e.g., singular frog in Exo. 8:6 -- in Hebrew it's Exo 8:2).

Unless you've got more time than you know how to use, I think you could put your reading efforts to more profitable use.

__________________
Clark Brooking
Pastor
Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Clarksville, MD

I find it interesting that two of the most ardent Dispensational pastors I know are always telling me that I'm Reformed because I'm not looking at the Bible through "Jewish eyes." I think I would agree with them at least a little bit if we actually had records of Hebrew exegesis significantly pre-Christian. The materials that we do have are mostly post-Christ and anti-Christ, thus being about as useful as Schleiermacher.

I just don't get why someone would want to run to these "Jewish fables" as the key to understanding the Bible.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

Charlie,

1.) Philological help. This is one of the biggest causes for the rise in Rabbinic studies.

2.) New Testament studies; understanding better the religion and world in which the NT was written; yes, the Mishnah, Talmuds, etc., did not come until a little after the NT era, but they reflect much thought from that earlier time.

3.) Especially among the older writings (Targums, etc), we have paraphrased and expanded readings of the texts; we may disagree with the interpretation, but having a native speaker from the time period giving a contemporary paraphrase of the text can be quite valuable. This is often the same reason that study of the LXX can be valuable.

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 06:47:01 EST-----

Also, Here is a link to a brief article on a great representative of 17th Century second-temple Judaism studies, J.H. Hottinger. The article includes a link to his Compendium Theologiae Judaicae Methodo Scholastica. It is important for scholars today to understand the role and relationship that Judaic studies used to have to Biblical studies, as opposed to today's world where our NT understanding is supposedly subject to every changing whim by historical scholars. We can learn a lot from these guys.

Yeah, I get all that. There are lots of good reasons to study those guys. I'm talking about certain brands of Dispensationalism that teach that the "Shemitic" way of thinking was obscured by a "Japhetic" (read: Greek philosophy) mindset that persisted through Augustine and Calvin, only recently overturned by the "rediscovery" of Israel-centric Dispensational theology. DTS, like Luther, rises up in a corrupt generation to bring the truth.

Groups like Friends of Israel, Shalom Ministries, and different Messianic organizations basically advertise that they "get" theology because they look at it through this lost Jewish mindset. Inevitably it includes a ton of attention to the Feasts of Jehovah, certain temple rights, and allegorical exegesis used to prove a Dispensational eschatology (odd mix, I know.) It's ridiculous, because Reformed scholars haven't been in the dark about what the Jews believed. They've just been more discerning.

Until you've spent some time around these people, it's very difficult to understand their mindset and their approach to theology.

Charlie -- Indeed. Thanks for the clarification. You know -- sometimes I think I just forget that, well, not everyone is Reformed!

Here's a short introduction to Lightfoot's study of the Gospels with the Talmud.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

Was the Oral Torah only communicated by word of mouth from the time of Moses to the time of the Mishnah(200 AD) as most Rabbis claim? Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah(Hilchot Yesodai Ha Torah) states that the Oral Torah was written during those years by disciples from their teachers only for their own personal use. Of course all these traditions of the Oral Torah eventually ended up under the editorial pen of Judah Ha Nasi who picked, chose and edited what became the Mishnah. As an illustration of what this type of editorship entailed, the Karaite Scholar Al-Kirkisani states that the Gemara portion of the Talmud (which is a discussion of the Mishnah) identified the Angel of the LORD as YAHWEH, which Al-Kirkisani charged was dangerously close to Christianity. This was over a thousand years ago. Subsequent editions of the Talmud have edited out this statement. Similiar editings of the Zohar deleted references to GOD as three persons and other Trinitarian statements. Refer to Yehuda Liebbes ----Studies in the Zohar. There is a whole chapter in that book on the censoring of the Zohar by Jewish Religious Scholars.

I'm not willing to grant the assumption behind your initial question. There was no oral law, distinct from and supplementary to the written law. Therefore it could not be so passed down. Rather, the impetus for the oral law is given in Abot 1.1. And it is this impetus that Jesus calls the "commandments of men".

I have no patience for, and see no value in kabbalah. It is late, pantheistic, and has nothing to say to biblical studies, IMHO. It says more about what happens to those who rebel against the covenant -- they are given over to a depraved mind.

I may be way off (it's happened before!) but is rabbinic Judiasm something that N.T. Wright is supposed to have expertise in? Wasn't it based on much of that writing and tradition that he claims to have found his new context for interpreting Paul on justification, i.e. Gentiles becoming "justified" into the covenant community rather than man being acquitted before the bar of God?

__________________
Bill in Dayton, OH
Member of Redeemer OPC

"Show me Your ways, O LORD;
Teach me Your paths.
Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
For You are the God of my salvation;
On You I wait all the day." (Psalm 25:4-5)

I agree that there is no oral law distinct from the written one. The so-called oral torah is merely the interpretation of the written Torah which is the Bible. The term oral torah itself is wrong since according to Maimonides it was written down! Like all interpretations, it is fallible, has developed thru the ages and HAS been subjected to a rigorous editing to remove any Christological interpretations. Witness our own Church History where the plain Gospel Preaching of the Early Church, has over the centuries become muddied and eventually resulted in the Works religion of Popery. However the Mishnah and the Gemara and the various Midrash are not without merit, as when used appropriately they do illumine the Word of God.
Regarding the late date of the Zohar, it is an open question. Orthodox Judaism holds that it was written by Shimon bar Yochai in the 2nd Century not Moses deLeon in the 13th. A comparison of the writings of deLeon and the Zohar would seem to bear this out. The same cautions regarding the Talmud should be appplied to the Zohar. BTW John Gill did quote from it in his writings so I am not inclined to dismiss it utterly.
However I would caution a young or weak believer from reading the Rabbinical writings as they have enough poison to kill.

Let's keep the common people ignorant and just tell them what we want them to know and what they should believe? Only select people should extent their studies beyond a certain point?

__________________
JC - PCA - PA...homesick for SC
A we n' de Ya, ho; I mak sikker; Deus juvat

Indicabo tibi o homo quid sit bonum, et quid Dominus requirat a te: Utique facere iudicium, et diligere, misericordiam, et sollicitum ambulare cum Deo tuo. Michaeas 6:8

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

I will simply ask you to not assume the worst of a brother; and to go back, reread the statements, and see if they can be read as representing a less snobbish and more charitable idea. Hint: they can be.

Have a blessed Sabbath.

I'm sure you meant it in a charitable way, but despite the good intentions, I believe the sentiment is wrong.

So no, I wasn't saying you were being snobbish...I was pointing out that this kind of thinking is the same kind of thinking various groups, including the RCC, had. The idea that the common man was able to read, learn, and discern was part of the Reformation. It's the one argument the RCC makes against us constantly. However, this statement mimics them. They felt they had good intentions as well.

I also dealt with this within the IFB and the Mennonite churches. KJVO, but the Pastor was permitted to read any version he wanted to help him understand a passage better. The Ministers were the only ones to listen to the radio and read magazines/newspapers...the common people were advised to let the minister filter it to them and not extend extra time and effort in it. I was even told that I "read too much" and most of my reading at that time was just the Scriptures and much discussion with my husband.

So you can see where your statement is one of those that, though YOU meant it in the best of manners (and I believe you did ), it shot up red flags really fast.

Lady Flynt, I do think you may be misreading Prufrock. I think his words are probably in line Romans 16:19 , Proverbs 19:27 and Titus 1:14 , among other texts that could be mentioned. Those verses do not support Rome in any way; but they do call upon us to be cautious and not swim beyond our depth.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Okay, then let me explain myself in more words -- for this is wholly different than saying everyone shouldn't read Bibles.

Richard Baxter (I believe?) left quick directions for "Reading a Book." One the directions in selecting reading material was to first ask, "Is this the best thing I could spend my time reading?" For the person whose vocation in life is not academic studies, and who in right use of their vocation necessarily spends their time in other things, I think it should be plain that esoteric works of Rabbinic lore are not the best and most productive thing that can be read to enhance Christian knowledge, devotion and understanding. In the same way, Medieval scholastic texts are essential to fully understanding the causes of the forms of certain Protestant doctrines of Theology Proper; these, however, are absolutely not the thing I would recommend to my Christian brothers to read. It isn't that one isn't worthy of reading these things, or any other sort of similar notion; rather, there are just far better, and more important, beneficial and pressing things for one to read. The one whose vocation is academic study does not have this luxury, but is expected to study sometimes strange things all the day long, so that through this knowledge he can better explain and exposit scripture.

I am sorry, but I think this has absolutely no parallel to Bibles being given to the people at the Reformation; it is not as though anyone will advocate a certain "class" of people being allowed access to certain sources of knowledge of which others will be deprived. It is merely a prudential recommendation that those whose vocations lie in fields other than the academic study of these things spend their time reading better and more pertinent things: I can tell you from experience -- you will read a lot of Rabbinic material and finally beat your forehead and cry out, "Why did I ever decide to read this?!" If you don't have to, don't; the same as I would recommend to my brothers that they not "waste time" reading the religious books of other religions; rather, I would recommend that they read the words of those good and proven Christian writers who were filled with the Holy Spirit of God, and who perhaps have had the (sometimes seemingly unfortunate) task assigned to them of sifting through some of the "other" material to find its importance and relation.

But, I need to go pray before Church; so I leave you there. Have a blessed Sabbath.

I agree with cautiousness and discernment. But should we dictate who is capable and who isn't? I believe the way the statement was worded is what cause red flags for me, concern not criticism. I'm afraid my first post came across wrong on that. I just was a bit flabbergasted at how it was stated.

But no, Paul, I don't think any less of you. I am willing to presume the best.

-----Added 5/17/2009 at 10:49:09 EST-----

Bibles weren't the books I was referring to when mentioning Rome and the Reformation. The Scriptures were attached to the pulpit, no issue there. It's more the inference that one shouldn't "read above their station".

Spot on from Pastor B.

Didn't Spurgeon say of Gill that he dug through a dung hill to find a few jewels?

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

I was actually aiming at their role within Judaism. As I understand it they developed into a "force" after the destruction of the second temple. They appear to have moved into the vacuum left and deliberately "ousted" the cohen from their traditional role.

How strong a tradition do the rabbis have?

When did they develop and how?

Jesus speaks of the scribes and Pharisees and Saducees but not the Rabbis?

Are the rabbis the successors to the Pharisees? If so are not their claims to ancient traditions, well... ...second hand at best?

Rabbinic Judaism developed from the school of Jamnia established by Yochanan ben Zakkai after the destruction of the Temple in AD70. Ben Zakkai was a Pharisee, and Rabbinic Judaism is in many ways the successor to the Pharisees. I can`t recall any favorable mention of the Saducees in the Talmud which was written by the Rabbis. The Saducees spiritual descendants seem to be the Karaites who were Jews against Rabbinic Tradition and supposedly believed in Scripture alone. Some of the finest Grammarians in Hebrew were Karaite such as Aaron ben Asher whose Masoretic Hebrew Text is the Hebrew Text we Christians use. The Rabbis claim to the ancient traditions of the Pharisees has some validity, but these ancient Traditions have been edited and modified to support a new religion of Judaism without the sacrificial system. The Orthodox Judaism in practice today would be very alien to a Pharisee living in time of Our Lord. I could go on further and describe how the Kabbalists in the middle ages further added to Jewish tradition such Pagan notions as Reincarnation(Gilgulim) which is almost universally accepted today in Orthodox Judaism.

JC, you have missed the point! i will assume for charity sake that you have never read the works in question.

Although i have not read more then a few hundred pages in these works i feel comfortable saying that there does not exist on this earth a more wicked, evil, blasphemous, scatelogical, porneographic, hateful, anti-christ, collection of writings.

If you were to spend the next 5 years reading nothing but the litt. of the modern wicca movement, with no scripture, and no fellowship with the saints, no sacraments, no preaching of the word to restore you mind & spirit, then you would be better off spiritually then if you spent the next 6 days with the Talmud.

These books contain the vile speculations of people that have rejected God, and have turned themselves over to the evil one.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

Amen.

__________________
Toni Cunningham, Wife of Bill (Theognome)
Parkwoods OPC, Overland Park KS

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." ~ Alexander Pope

quote]

Rabbinic Judaism developed from the school of Jamnia established by Yochanan ben Zakkai after the destruction of the Temple in AD70. Ben Zakkai was a Pharisee, and Rabbinic Judaism is in many ways the successor to the Pharisees. I can`t recall any favorable mention of the Saducees in the Talmud which was written by the Rabbis. The Saducees spiritual descendants seem to be the Karaites who were Jews against Rabbinic Tradition and supposedly believed in Scripture alone. Some of the finest Grammarians in Hebrew were Karaite such as Aaron ben Asher whose Masoretic Hebrew Text is the Hebrew Text we Christians use. The Rabbis claim to the ancient traditions of the Pharisees has some validity, but these ancient Traditions have been edited and modified to support a new religion of Judaism without the sacrificial system. The Orthodox Judaism in practice today would be very alien to a Pharisee living in time of Our Lord. I could go on further and describe how the Kabbalists in the middle ages further added to Jewish tradition such Pagan notions as Reincarnation(Gilgulim) which is almost universally accepted today in Orthodox Judaism.[/QUOTE]


This is more along the lines of what I was asking. I have just read a book which raises as many questions as it answers "Rabbi Akiba's Messiah: The Origins of Rabbinic Authority".

It left me wanting to pin down the development of the Rabbis and find out to what extent they were operating in the NT.

I was speaking towards a specific comment, not these three particular writings. I also would not be so ignorant as to read ANYTHING in a vacuum, neglecting the things you have mentioned.

Also, note that I did have charity in my other posts...my concern was the unintentional (I am presuming it was unintentional ) attitude that came across in two particular comments and the red flags that it raised.


Also, yes, I've read portions of one of these books. I'm not ignorant on what is in it. Again, I agree with discernment in reading.


Back to regular programing This side issue already has a fork in it and my concern had already been addressed

I have only read the short introduction by Lightfoot above. I have also read these books by Jews.

The Torah for Dummies: Arthur Kurzweil: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Amazon

That Steinsaltz volume is a good introduction. Better still is Rabbi Steinsaltz's New edition of the Talmud which is the only edition of the Talmud in print today which re-incorporates all the portions of the Talmud censored by the Papal Inquisition. Those portions many in the Sanhedrin Tractate(which has been Translated into English) refer to our Lord Jesus blasphemously.
But in this age when many scholars deny that the Lord Jesus was a historical person, the existence of these statements in the Talmud show from the evidence of his worst enemies that He existed and that the Gospel Account is accurate. There is a new book by Peter Schafer --- Jesus in the Talmud which translates and explains these portions.
I advise weak and new Christians to avoid the Talmud and other Rabbinic Texts such as the Chumash by Rashi or Ibn Ezra's Commentaries, as they can be very dangerous in untrained hands.