Historical apologetic and polemic works against Rabbinicism (Judaism)

[Sam Jer]

Hello,
What historical apologetics and polemical works are there against Rabbinicsm (i.e Judaism, falsely so called)? Did any of the Patristics, Reformers, Puritans, Covenanters, Dutch divines or other orthodox theologians have enough interactions with this religion to write against it?
I am particularly interested in older works, prior to the rise of Dispensationalism and the modern judaizing sects.

Also, is there a better translation of Luther's "On the Jews and their'e Lies" then the one on wikitext? Wikitext skips bits that seem important.

 

[RamistThomist]

Van Mastricht has a section in volume 1

 

[Sam Jer]

Van Mastricht has a section in volume 1

Volume 1 of what? Is it availble online somewhere or just in libraries I don't have access to?

 

[RamistThomist]

Volume 1 of what? Is it availble online somewhere or just in libraries I don't have access to?

His major systematic theology. I don't think it is online anywhere, but here is the gist of the argument:

Against the Jews’ belief in an enduring oral law, he asks “if the oral law is preserved, how could the written law have been lost? And if there was an oral law, Moses both wrote it and was ordered to write it” (142)?

 

[davejonescue]

You can rent the available volumes from Everand for 11.99 a month, all you can read. https://www.everand.com/book/490670365/Theoretical-Practical-Theology-Vol-1-Prolegomena

 

[Phil D.]

The best-known patristic polemic against Judaism is Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.
A recently translated medieval account is Petrus Alphonse's Dialogue Against the Jews.

More primary sources here.

 

[Phil D.]

Against the Jews’ belief in an enduring oral law, he asks “if the oral law is preserved, how could the written law have been lost? And if there was an oral law, Moses both wrote it and was ordered to write it” (142)?

In fairness, in Judaism the Oral Law is the rabbinic interpretation of the Written Torah, not altogether different in concept from Christian systematizations and commentaries on the Bible. Both certainly can and sometimes do get carried away or get things wrong in their attempts to expand and clarify what is specifically written. But some degree of interpretation is necessary to fully understand what is taught and commanded in both the Old and New Testaments.

Maimonides gave the scriptural basis for the Oral Law as perceived by Orthodox Judaism, in the introduction to his Mishnah Torah:

All the commandments which were given to Moses on Sinai were given with their interpretation; for it is said (Exodus 24:12), And I will give thee the tables of stone with the Torah (Law) and the Mitzwah (Commandment). Torah: that is, the Written Law; Mitzwah: that is, its interpretation. He commanded us to observe the Torah in accordance with the Mitzwah. And this Mitzwah is called the Oral Law. Moses our teacher wrote down the whole Law with his own hand before he died. ...The Mitzwah, that is, the interpretation of the Law, he did not write down, but he commended it to the Elders, and to Joshua (Exodus 24:13–18), and to the rest of Israel; for it is written, All the words which I have commanded you, these shall ye observe and do. (Deuteronomy 12:28). And therefore this is called the Oral Law.​

Now, one can certainly dispute such an interpretation of Exodus 24:12. But still, it is reasonable to suppose that the written law was not exhaustive on every matter that it more generally addresses. The issue of water rights have been raised as an example of something that is not explicitly laid out in the written law, but for which there were undoubtedly rules observed in accordance with broader principles found there. Deut. 12:21 has been cited as an example of a brief allusion to a commandment that is not obvious in the rest of the Torah. Deut. 17:8-13 talks about how the details of the written law concerning a killing are to be further discerned and adjudicated by authorities assigned to that task.

None of this is meant as a substantial, let alone blanket approval of the Jewish oral law. As I pointed out in a recent thread:

To be sure, Christians do not share the notion that all of the Oral Law was biblically sound—and certainly not so in terms of how at least some of it had come to be applied by the 1st century AD. Jesus often lambasted the Pharisees for aggrandizing and overvaluing some such statutes (cf. Matt. 23:23–24; Mark 2:23–28, Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6; John 7:21–24), and he emphatically denounced one socio-religious ruling that blatantly flew in the face of the Written Law (Mark 7:9–13).​

But, at least conceptually, I don't think the oral law is automatically or necessarily the bogey-man it is sometimes made out to be.

 

[Sam Jer]

In fairness, in Judaism the Oral Law is the rabbinic interpretation of the Written Torah, not altogether different in concept from Christian systematizations and commentaries on the Bible. Both certainly can and sometimes do get carried away or get things wrong in their attempts to expand and clarify what is specifically written. But some degree of interpretation is necessary to fully understand what is taught and commanded in both the Old and New Testaments.

Maimonides gave the scriptural basis for the Oral Law as perceived by Orthodox Judaism, in the introduction to his Mishnah Torah:

All the commandments which were given to Moses on Sinai were given with their interpretation; for it is said (Exodus 24:12), And I will give thee the tables of stone with the Torah (Law) and the Mitzwah (Commandment). Torah: that is, the Written Law; Mitzwah: that is, its interpretation. He commanded us to observe the Torah in accordance with the Mitzwah. And this Mitzwah is called the Oral Law. Moses our teacher wrote down the whole Law with his own hand before he died. ...The Mitzwah, that is, the interpretation of the Law, he did not write down, but he commended it to the Elders, and to Joshua (Exodus 24:13–18), and to the rest of Israel; for it is written, All the words which I have commanded you, these shall ye observe and do. (Deuteronomy 12:28). And therefore this is called the Oral Law.​

Now, one can certainly dispute such an interpretation of Exodus 24:12. But still, it is reasonable to suppose that the written law was not exhaustive on every matter that it more generally addresses. The issue of water rights have been raised as an example of something that is not explicitly laid out in the written law, but for which there were undoubtedly rules observed in accordance with broader principles found there. Deut. 12:21 has been cited as an example of a brief allusion to a commandment that is not obvious in the rest of the Torah. Deut. 17:8-13 talks about how the details of the written law concerning a killing are to be further discerned and adjudicated by authorities assigned to that task.

None of this is meant as a substantial, let alone blanket approval of the Jewish oral law. As I pointed out in a recent thread:

To be sure, Christians do not share the notion that all of the Oral Law was biblically sound—and certainly not so in terms of how at least some of it had come to be applied by the 1st century AD. Jesus often lambasted the Pharisees for aggrandizing and overvaluing some such statutes (cf. Matt. 23:23–24; Mark 2:23–28, Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6; John 7:21–24), and he emphatically denounced one socio-religious ruling that blatantly flew in the face of the Written Law (Mark 7:9–13).​

But, at least conceptually, I don't think the oral law is automatically or necessarily the bogey-man it is sometimes made out to be.

Maimonidees is a very bad source of Christian teaching. He was not a Christian.
On the oral law, consider the resources offered here. In particular, the bible passages @Jerusalem Blade cited on the topic The Law of Moses all written (not oral).

Since this is a Reformed Board, let me cite the shorter cathecism:

Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

Let me also cite Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 15:

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 

[Phil D.]

Maimonidees is a very bad source of Christian teaching. He was not a Christian.

Where did I say he was? I'm simply giving first-hand references to provide historical context for the subject being considered.

Further, Maimonides is frequently cited by Christian writers, including among the Reformers, as a valuable source for helping elucidate the OT Law. The various journals and minutes for the Westminster Assembly show references to Jewish rabbinic sources like Aben Ezra and Rashi, in the course of their deliberations. One of the leading Westminster divines, John Lightfoot, in other places extolls Maimonides as "the great interpreter of the Law." As a famous Hebraist, another Westminster divine, Thomas Coleman, was affably referred to by his colleagues as "Rabbi Coleman." etc.

 

[py3ak]

Peter Abelard wrote a Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian, but I didn't find it a terribly robust piece of work.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Alfred Edersheim has some excellent works that elucidate Rabbinical thought, especially providing context for the ways in which the Rabbis had, in many places, misconstrued things. His work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah is a great resource.

I agree with @Phil D. that the tradition of the Rabbis is equivalent to the ways in which Christians have historically commented upon and systematized the Scriptures. The Reformed impulse wasn't to abandon all prior interpretation and tradition but to subject it to the Scriptures as the morning norm. In some ways, the Rabbinic tradition was being treated the same way Roman Catholics treat their own tradition where they comment upon and build upon their tradition and Scripture is used in service to the tradition rather than the other way around.

What you can see more clearly, if you study how the Rabbis had consolidated around some key ideas, is that Jesus was constantly running against a mainstream idea of righteousness that the Pharisees were the most consistent in living out. We think of the Pharisees as being perceived as "black hats" by the population, but the reality is that they were grudgingly respected as consistently living out the tradition that had built up concerning the nature of righteousness. A man was considered righteous as he kept the Law and there was no sense in which a Publican could ever be counted as righteous because he had so "undone" obedience to the Law that he could never correspongly "do" the Law even as he was a penitent and turned away from his former sin. That Jesus was a friend of sinners and noted that notorious sinners were now "righteous" simply did not compute. That Jesus called men who thought of themselves as righteous the children of the devil upended the predominant tradition of His day.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Phil wrote,

Maimonides gave the scriptural basis for the Oral Law as perceived by Orthodox Judaism, in the introduction to his Mishnah Torah:

All the commandments which were given to Moses on Sinai were given with their interpretation; for it is said (Exodus 24:12), And I will give thee the tables of stone with the Torah (Law) and the Mitzwah (Commandment). Torah: that is, the Written Law; Mitzwah: that is, its interpretation. He commanded us to observe the Torah in accordance with the Mitzwah. And this Mitzwah is called the Oral Law. Moses our teacher wrote down the whole Law with his own hand before he died. ...The Mitzwah, that is, the interpretation of the Law, he did not write down, but he commended it to the Elders, and to Joshua (Exodus 24:13-18), and to the rest of Israel; for it is written, All the words which I have commanded you, these shall ye observe and do. (Deuteronomy 12:28). And therefore this is called the Oral Law.​

Exodus 24:12KJV actually says, "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them."[emphasis added]. These commandments are the Ten.

Moses had also written all the laws given him by God which apply the Decalogue in further detail, "And Moses wrote ALL the words of the LORD..." (Exodus 24:4KJV). The Jews wanted to retain control over any interpretation of the Decalogue and the Torah (instruction), and so developed their own hermeneutic to justify that. I don't have time this morning to go further, save to say that Exod 24:7KJV says, "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient." [emphasis added]

Yes, there are things of worth in rabbinic commentary, but in the main the Talmud is of little value, as it often detracts from THE Book.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

A friend of mine, in a high-end facility for the aged, in which are many Jews, shared with me recently that a Jewish leader there told him he had a book of the Hebrew Bible, which had a running commentary of Rabbinic interpretations accompanying the passages, and because of the disagreements between the rabbis, led him to believe that a lay person like himself would not be able to understand what the Scripture really said.

My own thought on that was: This "oral tradition" and the Talmud of the rabbis, for all that may be meritorious in it, has been a bane to Israel, for it keeps the people from the plain and fresh reading of the word of God. Such rabbis sound more like Roman Catholics than Jews, who must get their food from their priests and their understanding from the traditions of the Church! Jews are called "People of the Book," but most do not know the Book they are the people of, for a wall of rabbinic learning has been placed between them and their God, as though they were too "slow" to understand for themselves! And how many Jews know the urgent warning of Isaiah the Hebrew prophet, when he said, "The leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed" (Isaiah 9:16). Does one not think he spoke to such a time as this? (as this sort of time has been upon us often!)

_____

The terrible flaw of the so-called Oral Law – the Torah she’baal’Peh – is that its claim to have come from Moses, rather than its inception around the time of Ezra, is spurious and has the effect of giving the authority which rightfully belongs to God and His prophets to the scribes, rabbis and talmudists. As it stands in Rabbinic Judaism, the authority to decide what is of God and what not lies with the Sanhedrin or the majority in a Beth Din. Such authority is vested in these arbiters of Halakha [a specific legal ruling, or Rabbinic legal material in general] that they could actually decide against a prophet sent from God, or even the Messiah.

Not that this is a new thing in Israel, for after the rulers and scribes refused to humble themselves before God’s word through Jeremiah the prophet, and the chastenings of the LORD by king Nebuchadnezzar, He said through His inspired chronicler, "the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending, because He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy." (2 Chronicles 36:15,16) The people that belong to the Almighty who abide in modern Jewry will have ears to hear the plain sense of the things that are spoken by those proclaiming God’s word.

When a system of thought – in this case rabbinic halakha, aka "talmudic theology" – can supersede the Tanakh [Old Testament] in authority, you have the overthrow of the authority of God and His inspired messengers. This is how one defender of the "Oral Torah" [in an online discussion] typified the written Torah: "When Christianity...adopted the Torah without its Oral Tradition, they were left with a bare skeleton. That is what the written Torah is!"

One may caricature my position by likening it to the Karaites, but they fail to answer my arguments contra the alleged oral torah, demonstrating its falsity from Moses' certain words and the words of inspired Biblical authors.

There are those who assert: "Ezra, Nehamiah, Haggai and Malachi were among the Men of the Great Assembly who gave over that the Oral Torah was from Moshe Rabbeinu..."

But can anyone point to a place in the Book of God that supports this statement, or instead just use the circular (begging-the-question) reasoning of so many and resort back to the oral law, so called? If the oral law is its own support – like the Traditions of the Roman Catholic organization – that's a clever legal maneuver to subvert the authority of the written law!

Moshe (in online discussion) says: "since there's been no Sanhedrin for over 1500 years I'd say you need to read some history, son."

There may be no sanhedrin today, but much of today's halakha is founded on halakhic decisions of past sanhedrins; in that sense they exist today and are to be reckoned with by talmudic scholars.

It was said by a Jew, “The reason most Jews ignore the literary prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel is a) we KNOW many are trained to deceive by using those texts so we ignore them; b) the message is for the most part a long winded bummer couched in overblown imagery, and c) it has little or no relevance to day to day living. Which is why Jews focus on Written Torah, Ketuviim, the Book of Jonah, and the Oral Torah..."

And I respond, the LORD our God put it this way to us of old: "And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." (Deuteronomy 8:3) The prophets spoke the word of the LORD, and how is it that some so blithely dismiss both them and Him?

–––––––

On the Oral Law, so called.

When Moses died and God chose Joshua to lead the people, He told Joshua,

"Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded you: do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may act wisely wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do all that is written in it: for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall act wisely." (Joshua 1:7,8)

No mention of an "Oral" law.

When Moses neared the end of his career as leader of Israel, he gave them a number of charges; periodically he uses words such as these almost as a formula: "If you will not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious name, The LORD Thy God; then the LORD will make your plagues remarkable..." (Deuteronomy 28:58,59) In the next chapter Moses says, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (29:29) In chapter 30 he declares to all Israel, "See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I commanded you this day to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that you may live and multiply: and the LORD your God shall bless you in the land where you go to possess it....And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi, which bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel." (15,16; 31:9)

Again and again we find reference to the written law, upon which all the blessings and curses of the covenant devolve. When Israel faithfully and lovingly observes the written Law, she is blessed, when not, she is chastened; when she stiff-neckedly persists in spurning her God's word in the written Law, catastrophe befalls. There is no Oral Law going back to Moses. It is a legal device of the rabbinic school to wrest authority from the prophetic school, whose Chief is God.

Those times when Moses was required to inquire of the LORD concerning hard cases where the law did not specify judgment, those instances were written down. After the death of Moses counsel was to be sought of the high priest "after the judgment of Urim before the LORD..." (Numbers 27:21). Although how the Urim and the Thummim on the breastplate of the high priest was able give judgment and counsel to the children of Israel (Exodus 28:30) has not come down to us, we know that by this means the LORD was to be enquired of (1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63)

In the book of 2 Kings the inspired author writes, "But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, Him shall you fear, and Him shall you worship, and to Him shall you do sacrifice. And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do for evermore; and you shall not fear other gods" (2 Kings 17:36,37).

There are those who say Deut 30:11-14 refers to an oral law:

"For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not hidden from you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it."

Moses had recently charged the Levites to instruct the people in the law, stating a precept, and having the people "answer and say, 'Amen.' " The last of these precepts (in Deut 27:26) went as follows, "Cursed is he that does not confirm all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, 'Amen.' "

It's a big stretch to assume that "in your mouth and in your heart" alludes to "Oral and Written Torah." The written Torah was in their mouths and hearts.

In fact, the context demands we understand the written commandments are what is being talked of: "If you shall listen to the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law...For this commandment...is not in heaven...but...in your mouth...and heart..." (verses 10, 11, 12, 14). It was something taught them, and in which they were catechized, according to Moses: "And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up." (Deut 6:6,7)

Although in actuality, these verses are not used by the rabbinic school to prove the above wrong opinion, but a different halakhic rule, using the phrase "not in heaven" to mean, "The Torah has already been given us from Sinai. We are not to listen to a heavenly voice [i.e., in matters of halakhic decision]." –from Not In Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha," by Eliezer Berkovits (KTAV, 1983), pp 47, 48. The ramifications of this is that the words of a prophet may be overridden by the decision of a sanhedrin!

The talmudic rule expressed here, while of far greater weight than the former opinion, is also spurious, based on rabbinic fables in order to wrest power from the living God and His prophets (who indeed spoke a word from Heaven!) and to a majority in a Sanhedrin or Beth Din. Men would then decide halakha, and not God! This sort of thinking is that which has become the bane of Israel.

 

[Phil D.]

Phil wrote,

Maimonides gave the scriptural basis for the Oral Law as perceived by Orthodox Judaism, in the introduction to his Mishnah Torah:

All the commandments which were given to Moses on Sinai were given with their interpretation; for it is said (Exodus 24:12), And I will give thee the tables of stone with the Torah (Law) and the Mitzwah (Commandment). Torah: that is, the Written Law; Mitzwah: that is, its interpretation. He commanded us to observe the Torah in accordance with the Mitzwah. And this Mitzwah is called the Oral Law. Moses our teacher wrote down the whole Law with his own hand before he died. ...The Mitzwah, that is, the interpretation of the Law, he did not write down, but he commended it to the Elders, and to Joshua (Exodus 24:13-18), and to the rest of Israel; for it is written, All the words which I have commanded you, these shall ye observe and do. (Deuteronomy 12:28). And therefore this is called the Oral Law.
Exodus 24:12KJV actually says, "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them."[emphasis added]. These commandments are the Ten.

Moses had also written all the laws given him by God which apply the Decalogue in further detail, "And Moses wrote ALL the words of the LORD..." (Exodus 24:4KJV). The Jews wanted to retain control over any interpretation of the Decalogue and the Torah (instruction), and so developed their own hermeneutic to justify that. I don't have time this morning to go further, save to say that Exod 24:7KJV says, "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient." [emphasis added]

Yes, there are things of worth in rabbinic commentary, but in the main the Talmud is of little value, as it often detracts from THE Book.

Steve, all of this is countenanced in what I also wrote: "Now, one can certainly dispute such an interpretation of Exodus 24:12."

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Right, Phil — I just wanted to flesh that out.

 

[Charles Johnson]

There is a solid proof that Christ is the Messiah directed toward the Jews in Walaeus's Opera Omnia, vol. 1, which will be included in the upcome publication of Hoornbeeck's Institutiones.

The most important book-length refutation of Judaism from the post-reformation era is Johannes Hoornbeeck's Tešûvā Yehûdā Sive Pro Convincendis Et Convertendis Iudaeis Libri Octo.

The quantity of responses to Judaism from the era was severely limited by the lack of access to the Talmud or interest in it. Most Christian scholars did not and do not have a great knowledge of Aramaic, or sufficient academic interest in Judaism, to wade through the obscure, bizarre, and sometimes perverse behemoth that is the Talmud.

 

[Sam Jer]

Phil wrote,

Maimonides gave the scriptural basis for the Oral Law as perceived by Orthodox Judaism, in the introduction to his Mishnah Torah:

All the commandments which were given to Moses on Sinai were given with their interpretation; for it is said (Exodus 24:12), And I will give thee the tables of stone with the Torah (Law) and the Mitzwah (Commandment). Torah: that is, the Written Law; Mitzwah: that is, its interpretation. He commanded us to observe the Torah in accordance with the Mitzwah. And this Mitzwah is called the Oral Law. Moses our teacher wrote down the whole Law with his own hand before he died. ...The Mitzwah, that is, the interpretation of the Law, he did not write down, but he commended it to the Elders, and to Joshua (Exodus 24:13-18), and to the rest of Israel; for it is written, All the words which I have commanded you, these shall ye observe and do. (Deuteronomy 12:28). And therefore this is called the Oral Law.​

Exodus 24:12KJV actually says, "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them."[emphasis added]. These commandments are the Ten.

Moses had also written all the laws given him by God which apply the Decalogue in further detail, "And Moses wrote ALL the words of the LORD..." (Exodus 24:4KJV). The Jews wanted to retain control over any interpretation of the Decalogue and the Torah (instruction), and so developed their own hermeneutic to justify that. I don't have time this morning to go further, save to say that Exod 24:7KJV says, "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient." [emphasis added]

Yes, there are things of worth in rabbinic commentary, but in the main the Talmud is of little value, as it often detracts from THE Book.

A friend of mine, in a high-end facility for the aged, in which are many Jews, shared with me recently that a Jewish leader there told him he had a book of the Hebrew Bible, which had a running commentary of Rabbinic interpretations accompanying the passages, and because of the disagreements between the rabbis, led him to believe that a lay person like himself would not be able to understand what the Scripture really said.

My own thought on that was: This "oral tradition" and the Talmud of the rabbis, for all that may be meritorious in it, has been a bane to Israel, for it keeps the people from the plain and fresh reading of the word of God. Such rabbis sound more like Roman Catholics than Jews, who must get their food from their priests and their understanding from the traditions of the Church! Jews are called "People of the Book," but most do not know the Book they are the people of, for a wall of rabbinic learning has been placed between them and their God, as though they were too "slow" to understand for themselves! And how many Jews know the urgent warning of Isaiah the Hebrew prophet, when he said, "The leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed" (Isaiah 9:16). Does one not think he spoke to such a time as this? (as this sort of time has been upon us often!)

_____

The terrible flaw of the so-called Oral Law – the Torah she’baal’Peh – is that its claim to have come from Moses, rather than its inception around the time of Ezra, is spurious and has the effect of giving the authority which rightfully belongs to God and His prophets to the scribes, rabbis and talmudists. As it stands in Rabbinic Judaism, the authority to decide what is of God and what not lies with the Sanhedrin or the majority in a Beth Din. Such authority is vested in these arbiters of Halakha [a specific legal ruling, or Rabbinic legal material in general] that they could actually decide against a prophet sent from God, or even the Messiah.

Not that this is a new thing in Israel, for after the rulers and scribes refused to humble themselves before God’s word through Jeremiah the prophet, and the chastenings of the LORD by king Nebuchadnezzar, He said through His inspired chronicler, "the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending, because He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy." (2 Chronicles 36:15,16) The people that belong to the Almighty who abide in modern Jewry will have ears to hear the plain sense of the things that are spoken by those proclaiming God’s word.

When a system of thought – in this case rabbinic halakha, aka "talmudic theology" – can supersede the Tanakh [Old Testament] in authority, you have the overthrow of the authority of God and His inspired messengers. This is how one defender of the "Oral Torah" [in an online discussion] typified the written Torah: "When Christianity...adopted the Torah without its Oral Tradition, they were left with a bare skeleton. That is what the written Torah is!"

One may caricature my position by likening it to the Karaites, but they fail to answer my arguments contra the alleged oral torah, demonstrating its falsity from Moses' certain words and the words of inspired Biblical authors.

There are those who assert: "Ezra, Nehamiah, Haggai and Malachi were among the Men of the Great Assembly who gave over that the Oral Torah was from Moshe Rabbeinu..."

But can anyone point to a place in the Book of God that supports this statement, or instead just use the circular (begging-the-question) reasoning of so many and resort back to the oral law, so called? If the oral law is its own support – like the Traditions of the Roman Catholic organization – that's a clever legal maneuver to subvert the authority of the written law!

Moshe (in online discussion) says: "since there's been no Sanhedrin for over 1500 years I'd say you need to read some history, son."

There may be no sanhedrin today, but much of today's halakha is founded on halakhic decisions of past sanhedrins; in that sense they exist today and are to be reckoned with by talmudic scholars.

It was said by a Jew, “The reason most Jews ignore the literary prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel is a) we KNOW many are trained to deceive by using those texts so we ignore them; b) the message is for the most part a long winded bummer couched in overblown imagery, and c) it has little or no relevance to day to day living. Which is why Jews focus on Written Torah, Ketuviim, the Book of Jonah, and the Oral Torah..."

And I respond, the LORD our God put it this way to us of old: "And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." (Deuteronomy 8:3) The prophets spoke the word of the LORD, and how is it that some so blithely dismiss both them and Him?

–––––––

On the Oral Law, so called.

When Moses died and God chose Joshua to lead the people, He told Joshua,

"Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded you: do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may act wisely wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do all that is written in it: for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall act wisely." (Joshua 1:7,8)

No mention of an "Oral" law.

When Moses neared the end of his career as leader of Israel, he gave them a number of charges; periodically he uses words such as these almost as a formula: "If you will not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious name, The LORD Thy God; then the LORD will make your plagues remarkable..." (Deuteronomy 28:58,59) In the next chapter Moses says, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (29:29) In chapter 30 he declares to all Israel, "See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I commanded you this day to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that you may live and multiply: and the LORD your God shall bless you in the land where you go to possess it....And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi, which bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel." (15,16; 31:9)

Again and again we find reference to the written law, upon which all the blessings and curses of the covenant devolve. When Israel faithfully and lovingly observes the written Law, she is blessed, when not, she is chastened; when she stiff-neckedly persists in spurning her God's word in the written Law, catastrophe befalls. There is no Oral Law going back to Moses. It is a legal device of the rabbinic school to wrest authority from the prophetic school, whose Chief is God.

Those times when Moses was required to inquire of the LORD concerning hard cases where the law did not specify judgment, those instances were written down. After the death of Moses counsel was to be sought of the high priest "after the judgment of Urim before the LORD..." (Numbers 27:21). Although how the Urim and the Thummim on the breastplate of the high priest was able give judgment and counsel to the children of Israel (Exodus 28:30) has not come down to us, we know that by this means the LORD was to be enquired of (1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63)

In the book of 2 Kings the inspired author writes, "But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, Him shall you fear, and Him shall you worship, and to Him shall you do sacrifice. And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do for evermore; and you shall not fear other gods" (2 Kings 17:36,37).

There are those who say Deut 30:11-14 refers to an oral law:

"For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not hidden from you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it."

Moses had recently charged the Levites to instruct the people in the law, stating a precept, and having the people "answer and say, 'Amen.' " The last of these precepts (in Deut 27:26) went as follows, "Cursed is he that does not confirm all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, 'Amen.' "

It's a big stretch to assume that "in your mouth and in your heart" alludes to "Oral and Written Torah." The written Torah was in their mouths and hearts.

In fact, the context demands we understand the written commandments are what is being talked of: "If you shall listen to the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law...For this commandment...is not in heaven...but...in your mouth...and heart..." (verses 10, 11, 12, 14). It was something taught them, and in which they were catechized, according to Moses: "And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up." (Deut 6:6,7)

Although in actuality, these verses are not used by the rabbinic school to prove the above wrong opinion, but a different halakhic rule, using the phrase "not in heaven" to mean, "The Torah has already been given us from Sinai. We are not to listen to a heavenly voice [i.e., in matters of halakhic decision]." –from Not In Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha," by Eliezer Berkovits (KTAV, 1983), pp 47, 48. The ramifications of this is that the words of a prophet may be overridden by the decision of a sanhedrin!

The talmudic rule expressed here, while of far greater weight than the former opinion, is also spurious, based on rabbinic fables in order to wrest power from the living God and His prophets (who indeed spoke a word from Heaven!) and to a majority in a Sanhedrin or Beth Din. Men would then decide halakha, and not God! This sort of thinking is that which has become the bane of Israel.

Right, Phil — I just wanted to flesh that out.

Thank you, rev. Rafalsky. It is good to see a Reformed minister who cares about and has such a deep knowledge of these matters.

Other than "A Poet Arises in Israel", do you have more writtings on Rabinnicism and on the apostasy of the Jews? Of course it wouldn't fit the chronological criteria I set in the OP but I would defenitely find your'e works interesting.

A recently translated medieval account is Petrus Alphonse's Dialogue Against the Jews.

Google books only shows a short portion of it. Do you know if it is possible to acces the rest without paying 45$ (and to a Papist university at that)?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A few sources that might be helpful.

Moïse Amyraut on the superiority of Christian to Jewish morality

The Jewish Doctors upon this Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, thought that it was enough to abstain from the effusion of blood, and otherwise either justified or excused wrath, desires of revenge,…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

John Cameron on man’s corrupt affections and the Islamic and Jewish religions

IT may be that in the civil part of man’s life where (if the worst come to the worst) it toucheth but the temporal good: this affected winking of the understanding is not altogether hurtful. But in…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

John Owen on Jewish ignorance of total depravity

In things, therefore, of this kind, ignorance of their miserable condition by nature, both as to sin and wrath, justly claims the first place; for although, as was by instances before manifested, t…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

I think that I have another significant John Owen quote in my backlog of unpublished posts, but I will check for it later, DV.

 

[Phil D.]

Google books only shows a short portion of it. Do you know if it is possible to acces the rest without paying 45$ (and to a Papist university at that)?

It's available in some libraries near you. It's also less expensive in digital format.

 

[ReformedChristian]

https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/judaism/ @Sam Jer This may be of some help.